Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:25:17.156Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Depth perception and evoked brain activity: The influence of horizontal disparity and visual field location

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2009

Wolfgang Skrandies
Wolfgang Skrandies
Affiliation:
Institute of Physiology, Justus-Liebig University, 35392 Giessen, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The perception of dynamic random-dot stereograms (RDS) depends on the physiological fusion of horizontally disparate binocular visual input. Thus, the use of RDS offers the possibility to study selectively cortical processing of visual information in man. We investigated the influence of horizontal disparity on the scalp topography of RDS evoked brain activity in 33 healthy subjects. Stereoscopic checkerboard patterns were presented in the center or lateralized in the left or right visual field with horizontal disparities changing at temporal frequencies of six or eight depth reversals/s using different disparity values ranging from 3.5 to 28 min of arc. In 11 subjects evoked potential fields were recorded from 16 electrodes, and 21 subjects participated in 30-channel recordings with electrodes located over the parietal and occipital brain areas. Stimulation frequency-related brain activity was obtained with all disparity values; however, with large or small disparities the potential field strength decreased significantly while largest responses were obtained with intermediate disparities. Significant differences were observed in RDS evoked brain activity when central and lateralized stimulus locations were compared. With lateral stimuli (extending from the fovea to 17.1-deg eccentricity) maximal amplitudes were obtained at larger disparities than with central stimuli. In addition there were pronounced differences between brain activity evoked with stimuli presented in the left or right visual field; however, there were very similar evoked potential signals recorded from electrodes located over the left and right hemispheres. Our findings indicate that the processing of disparity information with lateralized stimuli is different from the processing in the center of the visual field. In addition, lateralized stimulation yields a significant disparity tuning mainly with stereoscopic targets occurring to the right from the fixation point (but not with stimuli to the left) suggesting a functional difference between the visual half-fields.

Keywords

Human visual systemVisual evoked potential (VEP)Brain electrical topographyStereoscopic perceptionDisparity
Type
Research Articles
Information
Visual Neuroscience , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , May 1997 , pp. 527 - 532
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bishop, P.O. (1973). Neurophysiology of binocular single vision and stereopsis. In Handbook of Sensory Physiology, Vol.7/3A, ed. Jung, R., pp. 255–305. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Coutant, B.E. & Westheimer, G. (1993). Population distribution of stereoscopic ability. Ophthalmology and Physiological Optics 13, 3–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunlop, D.D., Dunlop, P., Fenelon, B. & Neill, R.A. (1983). Evoked responses to distinct and nebulous stereoscopic stimuli. Australian Journal of Ophthalmology 11, 295–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erkelens, C.J. & Collewijn, H. (1985). Eye movements and stereopsis during dichoptic viewing of moving random-dot stereograms. Vision Research 25, 1689–1700.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fukai, S. (1985). Topographic visually evoked potentials induced by stereoptic stimulus. British Journal of Ophthalmology 69, 612–617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geib, T. & Baumann, C. (1990). Effect of luminance and contrast on stereoscopic acuity. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 228, 310–315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Helmholtz, H. (1864). Über den Horopter. Archiv für Ophthamologie 10, 1–60.Google Scholar
Hubel, D.H. & Wiesel, T.N. (1970). Stereoscopic vision in the macaque monkey. Nature 225, 41–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Julesz, B. (1960). Binocular depth perception of computer-generated patterns. Bell Systems Technical Journal, 39, 1125–1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Julesz, B. (1971). Foundations of Cyclopean Perception. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Julesz, B. & Schumer, R.A. (1981). Early visual perception. Annual Review of Psychology 32, 575–627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Julesz, B., Kropfl, W. & Petrig, B. (1980). Large evoked potentials to dynamic random-dot correlograms and stereograms permit quick determination of stereopsis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. 77, 2348–2351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehmann, D. & Julesz, B. (1978). Lateralized cortical potentials evoked in humans by dynamic random-dot stereograms. Vision Research 18, 1265–1271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monjé, M. (1940). Über eine neue Methode zur Untersuchung der Tiefensehschärfe Zeitschrift für Sinnesphysiologie 69, 73–90.Google Scholar
Ogle, N.K. (1962). The optical space sense. In The Eye, Vol. 4, ed. Davson, H., pp. 211–432. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Oldfield, R.C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9, 97–113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poggio, G.F. & Poggio, T. (1984). The analysis of stereopsis. Annual Review of Neuroscience 7, 397–412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skrandies, W. (1987). Visual persistence of stereoscopic stimuli: electric brain activity without perceptual correlate. Vision Research 27, 2109–2118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skrandies, W. (1991). Contrast and stereoscopic visual stimuli yield lateralized scalp potential fields associated with different neural generators. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 78, 274–283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skrandies, W. (1995). Visual information processing: topography of brain electrical activity. Biological Psychology 40, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skrandies, W. (1993). Mapping of scalp potential fields elicited by cortical generators: The use of dynamic random-dot stereograms. In Imaging of the Brain in Psychiatry and Related Fields, ed. Maurer, K., pp. 223–229, Berlin: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skrandies, W. & Vomberg, H.E. (1985). Stereoscopic stimuli activate different cortical neurones in man: Electrophysiological evidence. International Journal of Psychophysiology 2, 293–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
TNO Test for Stereoscopic Vision (1972). 5th edition. Laméris Instrumenten B. V., Utrecht.Google Scholar
Vomberg, H.E. & Skrandies, W. (1985). Untersuchung des Stereosehens im Zufallspunktmuster-VECP: Normbefunde und klinische Anwendung. Klinische Monatsblätter für Augenheilkunde 187, 205–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar