Advantage of binocularity in the presence of external visual noise

  • Joanna M. Otto
  • Michael Bach
  • Guntram KommerellEmail author



External visual noise plays a major role in real life, for instance, when a driver tries to identify an object through a snow flurry or through a dirty windshield. The goal of the present investigation was to quantify, under such a condition, the advantage of binocular over monocular vision or, rather, the disadvantage of having only one eye.


Eight observers judged the orientation of a Landolt ring (gap always 10 arcmin), partly obscured by noise particles of different sizes (5, 10 or 20 arcmin). The noise particles were presented at a stereo disparity of 62 arcmin, i.e. beyond Panum’s fusional area. We compared the percentage of correct responses and the reaction time between binocular and monocular vision. Control conditions: (1) binocular vision with noise particles located immediately in front of the Landolt ring (stereo disparity ± 0), and (2) absence of noise particles.


With regard to the percentage of correct responses, an advantage of binocular over monocular observation occurred only when the obscuring particles were presented at the stereo disparity of 62 arcmin. The advantage depended on the size of the noise particles. The factor was 1.24 for particles of 5 arcmin, 1.49 for 10 arcmin and 1.59 for 20 arcmin. With regard to the reaction time, there was no difference between binocular and monocular vision.


Binocular vision provides a considerable advantage over monocular vision when particles partly obstruct the view. This advantage is due to the capability of the visual system to construct a coherent percept of an object of which different parts are imaged in the right and left eye.


Stereopsis Binocular summation Signal-to-noise ratio Strabismus 



The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (KO 761/2-1) supported this research.


  1. 1.
    Andersen GJ (1990) Focused attention in three-dimensional space. Percept Psychophys 47:112–120PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arnold DH, Grove PM, Wallis TS (2007) Staying focused: a functional account of perceptual suppression during binocular rivalry. J Vis 7:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aulhorn E (1967) Die gegenseitige Beeinflussung abbildungsgleicher Netzhautstellen bei normalem und gestörtem Binokularsehen [The reciprocal effect exerted by retinal areas (perceiving) identical images in normal and disturbed binocular vision]. Doc Ophthalmol 23:26–61CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bacon BA, Mamassian P (2002) Amodal completion and the perception of depth without binocular correspondence. Perception 31:1037–1045CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Banton T, Levi DM (1991) Binocular summation in vernier acuity. J Opt Soc Am A 8:673–680CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bauer A, Dietz K, Kolling G, Hart W, Schiefer U (2001) The relevance of stereopsis for motorists: a pilot study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 239:400–406CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bauer A, Kolling G, Dietz K, Zrenner E, Schiefer U (2000) Are cross-eyed persons worse drivers? The effect of stereoscopic disparity on driving skills. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 217:183–189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Changizi MA, Shimojo S (2008) "X-ray vision" and the evolution of forward-facing eyes. J Theor Biol 254:756–767CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dengler B, Kommerell G (1993) Stereoscopic cooperation between the fovea of one eye and the periphery of the other eye at large disparities. Implications for anomalous retinal correspondence in strabismus. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 231:199–206CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fleck R, Kolling GH (1996) Two new stereotests for long distance: examination of stereopsis with regard to the permission of driving. Ger J Ophthalmol 5:53–59PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Forte J, Peirce JW, Lennie P (2002) Binocular integration of partially occluded surfaces. Vision Res 42:1225–1235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hibbard PB, Bradshaw MF, DeBruyn B (1999) Global motion processing is not tuned for binocular disparity. Vision Res 39:961–974CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Howard IP (2002) Seeing in Depth—Volume 1 Basic Mechanisms. Porteous, I. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jones RK, Lee DN (1981) Why two eyes are better than one: the two views of binocular vision. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 7:30–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Levi DM, Harwerth RS, Smith EL (1980) Binocular interactions in normal and anomalous binocular vision. Doc Ophthalmol 49:303–324CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McKnight AJ, Shinar D, Hilburn B (1991) The visual and driving performance of monocular and binocular heavy-duty truck drivers. Accid Anal Prev 23:225–237CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meese TS, Hess RF (2005) Interocular suppression is gated by interocular feature matching. Vision Res 45:9–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moraglia G, Schneider B (1992) On binocular unmasking of signals in noise: further tests of the summation hypothesis. Vision Res 32:375–385CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nakayama K, Shimojo S, Silverman GH (1989) Stereoscopic depth: its relation to image segmentation, grouping, and the recognition of occluded objects. Perception 18:55–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reiner J (1989) Irritation des binokularen Sehens durch Wischerspuren an Windschutzscheiben. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 194:62–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shimojo S, Nakayama K (1990) Real world occlusion constraints and binocular rivalry. Vision Res 30:69–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van den Berg AV, Brenner E (1994) Why two eyes are better than one for judgements of heading. Nature 371:700–702CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wakayama A, Matsumoto C, Shimomura Y (2005) Binocular summation of detection and resolution thresholds in the central visual field using parallel-line targets. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 46:2810–2815CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wood JM, Collins MJ, Carkeet A (1992) Regional variations in binocular summation across the visual field. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 12:46–51CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zohary E, Shadlen MN, Newsome WT (1994) Correlated neuronal discharge rate and its implications for psychophysical performance. Nature 370:140–143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joanna M. Otto
    • 1
  • Michael Bach
    • 1
  • Guntram Kommerell
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Universitäts-AugenklinikFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations