August 2012
Volume 12, Issue 9
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   August 2012
Motion parallax, pursuit eye movements and the assumption of stationarity
Author Affiliations
  • Brian Rogers
    Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, UK
Journal of Vision August 2012, Vol.12, 251. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Brian Rogers; Motion parallax, pursuit eye movements and the assumption of stationarity. Journal of Vision 2012;12(9):251.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Background: Rogers and Gyani (Perception 39, 2010) showed that the parallax transformations created by observer movement can only specify depth order and magnitude unambiguously if it can be assumed that the 3-D structure remains stationary during the observer movement. Using virtual 'Reverspectives', we have shown previously that the visual system makes no such assumption, at least when there is conflicting perspective, shading or disparity information (Rogers, B J. J Vis 10(7), 2010). The present experiment was designed to test whether the absence of rotation - stationarity - is assumed, or has to be specified, when motion parallax is the only source of 3-D information. Methods: To do this, observers viewed parallax transformations specifying a horizontally-oriented, sinusoidal corrugated surface while they made side-to-side head movements. Results: When there was vertical perspective (Braunstein M. and Payne J, JOSA 58 1968) and foreground flow information to specify the observer's rotation with respect to the surface, depth order was unambiguous and seen correctly. In the absence of these cues, the depth order was often seen incorrectly such that the reversed-depth corrugations appeared to rotate with the observer (but at twice the rate), as seen in the hollow mask illusion. In a second experiment, observers viewed a display that recreated all of the features of the optic flow that would normally be created during side-to-side head movements, but the observer did not move, gaze was fixed and hence no pursuit eye movements were necessary or evoked. Under these conditions, the perceived depth order was stable and unambiguous. Conclusions: (i) stationarity is not assumed by the visual system but has to be specified and (ii) pursuit eye movements (Nawrot, M. Vision Research 43, 2003) are neither necessary nor sufficient to disambiguate depth order.

Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012


This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.