- Anatomy of the visual apparatus
- Structures auxiliary to the eye
- The visual process
- The work of the auxiliary structures
- The work of the retina
- Some basic facts of vision
- Absolute threshold and minimum stimulus for vision
- Electrophysiology of the retina
- Colour vision
- The higher visual centres
- The visual pathway
- Some perceptual aspects of vision
- Electrophysiology of the visual centres
The perception of depth
The image of the external world on the retina is essentially flat or two-dimensional, and yet it is possible to appreciate its three-dimensional character with remarkable precision. To a great extent this is by virtue of the simultaneous presentation of different aspects of the world to the two eyes, but, even when subjects view the world with a single eye, it does not appear flat to them, and they can, in fact, make reasonable estimates of the relative positions of objects in all three dimensions. Examples of monocular cues are the apparent movements of objects in relation to each other when the head is moved. Objects nearer the observer move in relation to more distant points in the opposite direction to the movement of the head. Perspective, by which is meant the changed appearance of an object when it is viewed from different angles, is another important clue to depth. Thus, the projected retinal image of an object in space may be represented as a series of lines on a plane—e.g., a box—though these lines are not a unique representation of the box, because the same lines could be used to convey the impression of a perfectly flat object with the lines drawn on it or of a rectangular but not cubical box viewed at a different angle. In order for a three-dimensional object to be correctly represented to the subject on a two-dimensional surface, the subject must know what the object is; i.e., it must be familiar to the subject. Thus, a bicycle is a familiar object. If it is viewed at an angle from the observer, the wheels seem elliptical and apparently differ in size. Because the observer knows that the wheels are circular and of the same size, he or she perceives depth in a two-dimensional pattern of lines. The perception of depth in a two-dimensional pattern thus depends greatly on experience—the knowledge of the true shape of things when viewed in a certain way. Other cues are light and shade, overlapping of contours, and relative sizes of familiar objects.
The cues to depth mentioned above are essentially uniocular; they would permit the appreciation of three-dimensional space with a single eye. When two eyes are employed, two additional factors play a role, the one not very important—namely, the act of convergence or divergence of the eyes—and the other very important—namely, the stereoscopic perception of depth by virtue of the dissimilarity of the images presented by a three-dimensional object, or array of objects, to the separate eyes.
When a three-dimensional object or array is examined binocularly, the nearer points or objects require greater convergence for fixation than the more distant points or objects, so that this provides a cue to the three-dimensional character of the presentation. It is by no means a necessary cue, since presentation of the array for such a short time that movements of the eyes cannot occur still permits the three-dimensional perception, which is achieved under these conditions by virtue of the dissimilar images received by the two retinas.
A stereogram contains two drawings of a three-dimensional object taken from different angles, chosen such that the pictures are right- and left-eyed views of the object. When the stereogram is placed in a stereoscope, an optical device for enabling the two separate pictures to be fused and seen single, the impression created is one of a three-dimensional object. The perception is immediate, and is not a matter of interpretation. Clearly, with the stereoscope the situation is simulated as it normally occurs. To appreciate the full implications of the stereoscopic perceptual process, one must examine some simpler aspects of binocular vision.
In the case in which a subject is fixating (fixing his or her gaze on) the point F so that the images of F fall on the foveal (retinal) points fL and fR, F is seen as a single point because the retinal points fL and fR are projected to the same point in space, and the projection is such that the subject says that the point F is straight in front, although it is to the right of the left eye and to the left of the right eye. The two eyes in this case are behaving as a single eye, “the cyclopean eye,” situated in the centre of the forehead, and one may represent the projection of the two separate retinal points, fL and fR, as the single projection of the point fC of the cyclopean eye. As will be seen, the cyclopean eye is a useful concept in consideration of certain aspects of stereoscopic vision.
The points fL and fR may be defined as corresponding points because they have the same retinal direction values. The images formed by the points A and B, in the same frontal plane as F, fall on aL and aR and bL and bR; once again the pairs of retinal points are projected to the same points, namely, to A and B, and they are treated as being on the left and right of F, respectively. On the cyclopean projection, they may be said to be localized by the outward projections of aC and bC, respectively.
If the subject fixes on the point F, the point A is now no longer in the same frontal plane as the point F, but closer to the observer. The images of F fall on corresponding points and are projected to a single point in front. The images of A, on aL and aR, do not fall on corresponding points and are, in fact, projected into space in different directions, as indicated by the cyclopean projection. This means that A is seen simultaneously at two different places, a phenomenon called physiological diplopia, and this in fact does happen, as can be seen by fixing one’s gaze on a distant point and holding a pencil fairly close to the face; with a little practice the two images of the pencil can be distinguished. Thus, when the eyes are directed into the distance the objects closer to the observer are seen double, although one of the double images of any pair is usually suppressed. When F and A are seen single and in the same plane, their images each fall on corresponding points. When F is seen single and A double, the images of A fall on noncorresponding, or disparate, points. A is appreciated as being closer to the observer than F by virtue of these double images but, in general, although it is retinal disparity that creates the percept of three-dimensional space, it is not necessarily the formation of double images, since the point will be seen single if the disparity is not large, and this single point will appear to be in a different frontal plane from that containing the fixation point.
To appreciate the nature of this stereoscopic perception one must examine what is meant by corresponding points in a little more detail. In general, it seems that the two retinas are, indeed, organized in such a way that pairs of points are projected innately to the same point in space, and the horopter is defined as the outward projection of these pairs. One may represent this approximately by a sphere passing through the fixation point, or, if one confines attention to the fixation plane, it may be represented by the so-called Vieth-Müller circle. On this basis, the corresponding points are arranged with strict symmetry, and each pair projects to a single point in space on the horopter circle. Theoretically, then, all points on the circle passing through the fixation point, F, will be seen single, and the point X will be seen double because it will be projected by the left eye to F and by the right eye to A. The actual situation is somewhat more complex than this, since experimentally the horopter turns out to have different shapes according to how close the fixation point is to the observer. The point to appreciate, however, is that the experimentally determined line, be it circular or straight or elliptical, is such that when points are placed on it they all appear to be in the same frontal plane—i.e., there is no stereoscopic perception of depth when one views these points—and one may say that this is because the images of points on the horopter fall on corresponding points of the two retinas.
When the two eyes are viewing an arrow lying in the frontal plane, there is no stereopsis. When the arrow is inclined into the third dimension, it tends to point toward the observer. All points on the arrow are, in fact, seen single under both conditions, and yet, if the gaze is fixed on A, the images of B′ will fall on noncorresponding points. B′ is not seen double but, instead, the noncorresponding points, b′L and b′R, are projected to a common point B′ and a stereoscopic percept is achieved. Thus the noncorresponding, or disparate, points on the retinas can be projected to a single point, and it is essentially this fusion of disparate images by the brain that creates the impression of depth. If the point B′ were brought much closer to the eyes, its images would fall on such disparate points that fusion would no longer be possible, and B′ would be seen double, or one double image would be suppressed. There is thus a certain zone of disparity that, if not exceeded, allows fusion of disparate points. This is called Panum’s fusional area; it is the area on one retina such that any point in it will fuse with a single point on the other retina.
To return to the stereoscopic perception of three-dimensional space, one may recapitulate that it is because the two eyes receive different images of the same object that the stereoscopic percept happens; when the two images of the object are identical, then, except under very special conditions, the object has no three-dimensionality. A special condition is given by a uniformly illuminated sphere; this is three-dimensional, but the observer would have to use special cues to discriminate this from a flat disk lying in the frontal plane. Such a cue might be the different degree of convergence of the eyes required to fixate the centre from that required to fixate the periphery, or the different degree of accommodation.
The difference in the two aspects of the same object (or group of objects), measured as the instantaneous parallax. B is closer to the observer than A; the fact is perceived stereoscopically because the line AB subtends different angles at the two eyes, and the instantaneous parallax is measured by the difference between the angles a and b. The binocular parallax of any point in space is given by the angle subtended at it by the line joining the nodal points of the two eyes. Hence, the binocular parallax of A is a, and that of B is b. The instantaneous parallax is thus the difference of binocular parallax of the two points considered.
If one places three vertical wires in front of an observer in the frontal plane, one may move the middle one in front of, or behind, the plane containing the other two and ask the subject to say when he perceives that it is out of the plane; under correct experimental conditions the only cue will be the difference of binocular parallax, and it is found that the minimum difference is remarkably small, of the order of five seconds of arc, corresponding to a disparity of retinal images far smaller than the diameter of a single cone. With two editions of the same book, it is not possible, by mere inspection, to detect that a given line of print was not printed from the same type as the same line in the other book. If the two lines in question are placed in the stereoscope, it is found that some letters appear to float in space, a stereoscopic impression created by the minute differences in size, shape, and relative position of the letters in the two lines. The stereoscope may thus be used to detect whether a bank note has been forged, whether two coins have been stamped by the same die, and so on.
The stereoscopic appearance obtained by regarding two differently coloured, but otherwise identical, plane pictures with the two eyes separately, is probably due to chromatic differences of magnification. If the left eye, for example, views a plane picture through a red glass and the right eye views the same picture through a blue glass, an illusion of solidity results. Chromatic difference in magnification causes the images on the two retinas to be slightly different in size, so that the images of any point on the picture do not fall on corresponding points; the conditions for a stereoscopic illusion are thus present.
Stereoscopic perception results from the presentation to the two eyes of different images of the same object; if two pictures that cannot possibly be related as two aspects of the same three-dimensional object are presented to the two eyes, single vision may, under some conditions, be obtained, but the phenomenon of retinal rivalry enters. Thus, if the letter F occupies one side of a stereogram and L the other, the two letters can be fused by the eyes to give the letter E. The letters F and L cannot, however, by any stretch of the imagination, be regarded as left and right aspects of a real object in space, so that the final percept is not three-dimensional, and, moreover, it is not a unitary percept in the sense used in this discussion. Great difficulty is experienced in retaining the appearance of the letter E, the two separate images F and L tending to float apart. This is a mode of binocular vision that may be more appropriately called simultaneous perception; the two images are seen simultaneously, and it is by superimposition, rather than fusion, that the illusion of the letter E is created. More frequent than superimposition is the situation in which one or the other image is completely suppressed; thus, if the right eye views a vertical black bar and the left eye a horizontal one, the binocular percept is not that of a cross; usually the subject is aware of the vertical bar alone or the horizontal bar alone. Moreover, there is a fairly characteristic rhythm of suppression, or alternation of dominance, as it is called.
Retinal rivalry may be viewed as the competition of the retinal fields for attention; such a notion leads to the concept of ocular dominance—the condition when one retinal image habitually compels attention at the expense of the other. While there seems little doubt that a person may use one eye in preference to the other in acts requiring monocular vision—e.g., in aiming a rifle—it seems doubtful whether, in the normal individual, ocular dominance is really an important factor in the final awareness of the two retinal images. Where the retinal images overlap, stereoscopic perception is possible and the two fields, in this region, are combined into a single three-dimensional percept. In the extreme temporal fields (i.e., at the outside of the fields of vision), entirely different objects are seen by the two eyes, and the selection of what is to dominate the awareness at any moment depends largely on the interest it arouses; as a result, the complete field of view is filled in and one is not aware of what objects are seen by only one eye. Where the fields overlap, and different objects are seen by the two eyes—e.g., on looking through a window the bars may obscure some objects as seen by one eye but not as seen by the other—the final percept is determined by the need to make something intelligible out of the combined fields. Thus, the left eye may see a chimney pot on a house, while the other eye sees the bar of a window in its place; the final perceptual pattern involves the simultaneous awareness of both the bar and the chimney pot because the retinal images have meaning only if both are present in consciousness. So long as the individual retinal images can be regarded as the visual tokens of an actual arrangement of objects, it is possible to obtain a single percept, and there seems no reason to suppose that the final percept will be greatly influenced by the dominance of one or other eye. When a single percept is impossible, retinal rivalry enters; this is essentially an alternation of awareness of the two fields—the subject apparently makes attempts to find something intelligible in the combined presentation by suppressing first one field and then the other—and certainly it would be incorrect to speak of ocular dominance as an absolute and invariable imposition of a single field on awareness, since this does not occur. Dominance, however, has a well-defined physiological meaning in so far as certain cells of the cerebral cortex may be activated exclusively by one eye, either because the other eye makes no neural connections with it or because the influence of the other eye is dominant.
Binocular brightness sensation
When the two eyes are presented with differently illuminated objects or surfaces some interesting phenomena emerge. Thus fusion may give rise to a sensation of lustre. In other instances, rivalry takes place, the one or other picture being suppressed, while in still others the brightness sensation is intermediate between those of the two pictures. This gives rise to the paradox whereby a monocularly viewed white surface appears brighter than when it is viewed binocularly in such a way that one eye views it directly and the other through a dark glass. In this second case the eyes are receiving more light, but because the sensation is determined by both eyes, the result is one that would be obtained were one eye to look at a less luminous surface.