Factors limiting sensitivity to binocular disparity in human vision: Evidence from a noise-masking approach.

Our visual system uses the disparity between the images received by the two eyes to judge three-dimensional distance to surfaces. We can measure this ability by having subjects discriminate the disparity of rendered surfaces. We wanted to know the basis of the individual differences in this ability. We tested 53 adults with normal vision using a relative disparity detection task. Targets were wedge-shaped surfaces formed from random dots. These were presented in either crossed or uncrossed disparity relative to a random dot background. The threshold disparity ranged from 24 arc seconds in the most-able subject to 275 arc seconds in the least-able subject. There was a small advantage for detecting crossed-disparity targets. We used the noise-masking paradigm to partition subject performance into two factors. These were the subject's equivalent internal noise and their processing efficiency. The parameters were estimated by fitting the linear amplifier model. We found both factors contributed to the individual differences in stereoacuity. Within subjects, those showing an advantage for one disparity direction had enhanced efficiency for that direction. Some subjects had a higher equivalent internal noise for one direction that was balanced out by an increased efficiency. Our approach provides a more thorough account of the stereo-ability of our subjects compared with measuring thresholds alone. We present a normative set of results that can be compared with clinical populations.

Stereo-anomaly is found more frequently in tasks that require discrimination between depths.

Within the population of humans with otherwise normal vision, there exists some proportion whose ability to perceive depth from binocular disparity is poor or absent. The prevalence of this "stereo-anomaly" has been reported to be as small as 2%, or as great as 30%. We set out to investigate this discrepancy. We used a digital tool to measure stereoacuity in tasks requiring either the detection of disparity or the discrimination of the direction of disparity. In a cohort of 228 participants, we found that 98% were able to consistently perform the detection task. Of these, only 69% consistently performed the discrimination task. The 31% of participants who had difficulty with the discrimination task could further be divided into 17% who were consistently unable to perform the task and 14% who showed limited ability. This suggests that identification of the direction of disparity requires further processing beyond merely detecting its presence.

Amblyopic stereo vision is efficient but noisy.

People with amblyopia demonstrate a reduced ability to judge depth using stereopsis. Our understanding of this deficit is limited, as standard clinical stereo tests may not be suited to give a quantitative account of the residual stereo ability in amblyopia. In this study we used a stereo test designed specifically for that purpose. Participants identified the location of a disparity-defined odd-one-out target within a random-dot display. We tested 29 amblyopic (3 strabismic, 17 anisometropic, 9 mixed) participants and 17 control participants. We obtained stereoacuity thresholds from 59% of our amblyopic participants. There was a factor of two difference between the median stereoacuity of our amblyopic (103 arcsec) and control (56 arcsec) groups. We used the equivalent noise method to evaluate the role of equivalent internal noise and processing efficiency in amblyopic stereopsis. Using the linear amplifier model (LAM), we determined the threshold difference was due to a greater equivalent internal noise in the amblyopic group (238 vs 135 arcsec), with no significant difference in processing efficiency. A multiple linear regression determined 56% of the stereoacuity variance within the amblyopic group was predicted by the two LAM parameters, with equivalent internal noise predicting 46% alone. Analysis of control group data aligned with our previous work, finding that trade-offs between equivalent internal noise and efficiency play a greater role. Our results allow a better understanding of what is limiting amblyopic performance in our task. We find this to be a reduced quality of disparity signals in the input to the task-specific processing.