Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 161–185

The psychophysical inquiry into binocular summation

  • Randolph Blake
  • Robert Fox
Article

Abstract

Experiments that compare monocular and binocular visual performance of human psychophysical Os on a variety of visual tasks are reviewed. The review attempts to include all experiments published in English in this century, excluding work on stereopsis, rivalry, and evoked potentials. The concept of probability summation as a baseline for assessing the presence of neural summation is discussed, and the assumptions of several models for estimating probability summation are considered. Experiments are classified in terms of visual task, major categories being increment detection, flicker fusion, brightness magnitude, and contour resolution. A major conclusion is that binocular performance is superior for essentially all task categories and in most cases by a magnitude greater than that predicted by appropriate probability summation models.

References

  1. Abney, W. de W., & Watson, W. The threshold of vision for different colored lights. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. A, 1916, 216, 91–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, C. H. The dependence of binocular fusion on timing of peripheral stimuli and on central process. I. Symmetrical flicker. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1952a. 6, 1–10.Google Scholar
  3. Baker. C. H. The dependence of binocular fusion on timing of peripheral stimuli and on central process. I. Symmetrical flicker (continued). Canadian Journal of Psychology. 1952b, 6, 84–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, C. H. The dependence of binocular fusion on timing of peripheral stimuli and on central process. II. Asymmetrical flicker. Canadian Journal of Psychology. 1952c, 6, 123–130.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, C. H. The dependence of binocular fusion on timing of peripheral stimuli and on central process. III. Cortical flicker. Canadian Journal of Psychology. 1952d, 6, 151–163.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker, C. H., & Bott. E. A., Studies on visual flicker and fusion. II. Effects of timing of visual stimuli on binocular fusion and flicker. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1951, 5, 9–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bárány, E. A theory of binocular visual acuity and an analysis of the variability of visual acuity. Acta Ophthalmologica, 1946. 24, 63–92.Google Scholar
  8. Bartlett, N. R. Thresholds as dependent on some energy relation and characteristics of the subject. In C. Graham (Ed.).Vision and risual perception New York: Wiley. 1965Google Scholar
  9. Bartlett, N. R. & Gagné, R. M. On binocular summation at threshold. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1939, 25, 91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bartley, S.H. Some parallels between pupillary reflexes and brightness discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1943, 32, 110–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Battersby, W. S., & Defabaugh, G. L. Neural limitations of visual excitability: After-effects of subliminal stimulation. Vision Research. 1969, 9, 757–768.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Braddick. O Binocular interaction and signal detection theory. Vision Research. 1972, 12, 1435–1437.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burns, B. D., & Pritchard, R. Cortical conditions for fused binocular vision. Journal of Physiology. 1968, 197, 149–171PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Campbell, H. W. & Green. D. G. Monocular versus binocular visual acuity. Nature. 1965, 208, 191–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Casperson, R. C. & Schlosberg. H. Monocular and binocular intensity threpoids for fields containing 1–7 dots. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1950, 40, 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cobb, P. W. Individual variations in retinal sensitivity, and their correlation with ophthalmological findings. Journal of Experimental Psyclology. 1922, 5, 227–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Collier, G. Probability of response and intertrial association as functions of monocular and binocular stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1954, 47, 75–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Collier, G., & Kubzansky, P. The magnitude of binocular summation as a function of the method of stimulus presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1958, 56. 355–361.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cook. T. W. Binocular and monocular relations in foveal dark adaptation Psychological Monographs. 1934, 45 (Whole No. 202).Google Scholar
  20. Cornsweet, T. N.Visual perception. New York: Academic Press. 1970.Google Scholar
  21. Crozier. W. J. On the sensory discrimination of intensities Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 1936, 22, 412–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Crozier, W. J., & Holway, A. H. Theory and measurement of visual mechanisms. I. A visual discriminometer. II. Threshold stimulus intensity and retinal position. Journal of General Physiology, 1939a, 22. 341–364.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Crozier, W. J., & Holway, A. H. Theory and measurement of visual mechanisms: III ΔI as a function of area, intensity, and wavelength for monocular and binocular stimulation. Journal of General Physiology. 1939b, 23, 101–141.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Crozier, W. J., & Wolf, E. Theory and measurement of visual mechanisms: IV Critical intensities for visual flicker. monocular and binocular. Journal of General Physiology. 1941, 24, 505–534.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dawson, S. Binocular and uniocular discrimination of brightness British Journal of Psychology. 1913, 6, 78–108.Google Scholar
  26. DeSilva. H. R., & Bartley, S. H. Summation and subtraction of brightness in binocular perception. British Journal of Psychology. 1930, 20, 242–252.Google Scholar
  27. Doherty, M. E., & Keeley, S. M. A Bayesian prediction of four-look recognition performance from one-look data. Perception & Psychophysics. 1969, 5, 362–364Google Scholar
  28. Doherty, M. E., & Keeley, S. M. On the identification of repeatedly presented, brief visual stimuli. Psychological Bulletin. 1972, 78, 142–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Downey, J. Determination of minimum light sense and retinal dark adaptation. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 1919, 2, 13–20Google Scholar
  30. Duke-Elder. W. W.Textbook of ophthalmology. Vol. 1. London: Kimpton. 1932.Google Scholar
  31. Engel, G. R. The visual process underlying binocular brightness summation Vision Research. 1967. 7. 753–767.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Engel, G. R. The autocorrelation function and binocular brightness mixing. Vision Research. 1969, 9. 1111–1130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Engel, G. R. Tests of a model of binocular brightness Canadian Journal of Psychology. 1970, 24, 335–352Google Scholar
  34. Eriksen, C. W. Independence of successive inputs and uncorrected error in visual form perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1966, 72, 26–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Eriksen, C. W., & Greenspon. T. S. Binocular summation over time in the perception of form at brief durations. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1968, 76, 331–336.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Eriksen. C. W., Greenspon, T. S., Lappin, J. S., & Carlson, W. A Binocular summation in theperception of form at brief durations Perception & Psychophysics. 1966, 1, 415–419.Google Scholar
  37. Eriksen, C. W., & Lappin. J. S. Internal perceptual system noise and redundancy in simultaneous inputs in form identification Psychonomic Science. 1965, 2, 351–352.Google Scholar
  38. Eriksen, C. W., & Lappin. J. S. Independence in the perception of simultaneously presented forms at brief durations Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1967, 73, 468–472.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fechner. G. T.Elemente der Psychophrsik, Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hårtel, 1860.Google Scholar
  40. Feller, W.An introduction to probability theory and its applications. New York: Wiley, 1960.Google Scholar
  41. Ferree, C. W., Rand, G., & Buckley. D. Study of ocular functions with special reference to the lookout and signal service of the navy. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1920, 3, 347–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Flom, M. C., Heath, G. G., & Takahashi, E. Contour interaction and visual resolution: Contralateral effects. Science, 1963, 42, 979–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Foley, P. J., & Stager, P. The phase difference function in binocular flicker. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1965, 19, 47–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Forbes, L. M., & Mote, F. A. A comparison of the variability of binocular and monocular threshold measurements during dark adaptation in the human eye. Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 1956, 49, 431–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Fry, G. A. The relation of accommodation to the suppression of visionin one eve. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 1936, 19, 135–138Google Scholar
  46. Fry, G. A., & Bartley, S. H. The brilliance of an object seen binocularly. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 1933, 16, 687–693.Google Scholar
  47. Garner, W. R., & Morton, J. Perceptual independence: Definitions, models, and experimental paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 72, 233–259.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Graham, C. H. Aninvestigation of binocular summation: I. The fovea. Journal of General Psychology, 190, 3, 494-509.Google Scholar
  49. Graham, C. H. Aninvestigation of binocular summation: II. The periphery. Journal of General Psychology, 191, 5, 311–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Graham, C. H. Neural correlates. In C. Murchison (Ed.),A handbook of general experimental psychology. Worcester: Clark University Press, 1934. Pp. 829–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Graham, C., Brown, R. H., & Mote, F. A. The relative size of stimulus and intensity in the human eye. Journalof Experimental Psychology, 1939, 24, 555–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Granit, R.Charles Scott Sherrington: A biography of the neurophysiologist. New York: Doubleday, 1967.Google Scholar
  53. Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A.Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley, 1966.Google Scholar
  54. Guth, S. L. On probability summation. Vision Research, 1971, 11, 747–750.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hecht, S. The nature of foveal dark adaptation. Journal of General Physiology, 1921, 4, 113–139.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Horowitz, M. W. An analysis of the superiority of binocular over monocular visual acuity. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1949, 39, 581–596.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hubel, D. H., & Wiesel, T. N. Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat’s visual cortex. Journal of Physiology, 1962, 160, 106–154.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Hubel, D. H., & Wiesel, T. N. Receptive fields and functional architecture of monkey striate cortex. Journal of Physiology, 1968, 195, 215–243.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Ireland, F. H. Comparison of critical flicker frequencies under conditions of monocular and binocular stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1950, 40, 282–286.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kahneman, D., Norman, J., & Kubovy, M. Critical duration for the resolution of form: Centrally or peripherally determined? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967, 73, 323–327.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Keeley, S. M., & Doherty, M. E. Simultaneous and successive presentations of single-featured and multi-featured visual forms: Implications for the parallel processing hypothesis. Perception & Psychophysics, 1968, 4, 296–298.Google Scholar
  62. Keeley, S. M., & Doherty, M. E. Bayesian aggregation of independent successive visual inputs. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1971a, 90, 300–305.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Keeley, S. M., & Doherty, M. E. A Bayesian prediction of multiple look identification performance from one-look data. The effect of unequal prior probabilities. Perception & Psychophysics, 1971b, 10, 119–122.Google Scholar
  64. Kincaid, W. M., Blackwell, H. R., & Kristofferson. A. B. Neural formulation of the effects of target size and shape upon visual detection. Journal of the Optical Society of America. 1960, 50, 143–148.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kinsbourne, M.,& Coughlin, P. J. The demonstration of dichoptic flicker effects by the use of Polaroid. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 21, 67–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Kintz, R. T. A comparison of monocular and binocular temporal resolution in human vision. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Rochester, 1970.Google Scholar
  67. Laird, D. Studies relating to the problem of binocular summation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1924, 7, 276–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. LeGrand, Y.Form and space vision. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1967.Google Scholar
  69. Leibowitz, H., & Walker, L. Effect of field size and luminance on the binocular summation of supra threshold stimuli. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1956, 46, 171–172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Levelt, W. J. M.On binocular rivalry. (Dissertation. Leiden University, 1965.) (2nd ed.) The Hague: Mouton, 1968.Google Scholar
  71. Lythgoe, R. J., & Phillips, L. R. Binocular summation during dark adaptation. Journal of Physiology, 1938, 91, 427–436.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Matin, L. Binocular summation at the absolute threshold for peripheral vision. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1962, 52, 1276–1286.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. McGill, W. J. Stochastic latency mechanisms. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, and E. Galanter (Eds.),Handbook of mathematical psychology. Vol.1. New York: Wiley, 1963. Pp. 309–360.Google Scholar
  74. Minucci, P. K., & Connors, M. M. Reaction time under three viewing conditions: Binocular, dominant eye. and non-dominanteye. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967, 67, 268–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Peckham, R. H., & Hart, W. M. Binocular summation of subliminal repetitive visual stimulation. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 1960, 49, 1121–1125.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Perrin, F. H. A study of binocular flicker. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1954, 44, 60–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Piper, H. Über das Helligkeilsverhaltnis monokular und binokular ausgeloster Lichtempfindungen. Zeitschrift fur Sinnesphysiologie, 1903, 32, 161–176. [Cited by T. W. Cook, Binocular and monocular relations in foveal dark adaptation. Psychological Monographs, 1934, 45 (Whole No. 202).]Google Scholar
  78. Pirenne, M. H. Binocular and uniocular thresholds in vision. Nature, 1943, 152, 698–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pirenne, M. H., & Marriott, F. H. C. The quantum theory of light and the psychophysiology of vision. In S. Koch (Ed.),Psychology: A study of a science. Study I: Conceptual and systematic. Vol.1. Sensory, perceptual, and physiological formulations. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959. Pp. 288–361.Google Scholar
  80. Poffenberger, A. T. Reaction time to retinal stimulation with special reference to the time lost in conduction through nerve centers. Archives of Psychology, 1912, 23, 1–73.Google Scholar
  81. Polyak, S. L.The vertebrate visual system. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1957.Google Scholar
  82. Reeves, P. Rate of pupillary dilation and contraction. Psychological Review, 1918, 25, 330–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rodieck, R. W. Central nervous systems: Afferent mechanisms. Annual Review of Physiology, 1971, 33, 203–240.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Roelofs, C., & Zeeman, W. Zur Frage der binokularen Schwellenwerte, v. Graefe’s Archiv fur Ophthalmologie, 1914, 88, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Shaad, D. Binocular summation in scotopic vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1935, 4, 391–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sherrington, C. S. Onbinocular flickerand the correlation of activity of “corresponding retinal points.” British Journal of Psychology, 1904, 1, 26–60.Google Scholar
  87. Sherrington, C. S.The integrative action of the nervous system. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1906. Republished 1947, 1961.Google Scholar
  88. Stevens, J. C. Brightness function: Binocular versus monocular stimulation. Perception & Psychophysics, 1967, 2, 451–454.Google Scholar
  89. Swets, J. A. Is there a sensory threshold? Science, 1961, 134, 168–177.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Swets, J. A. (Ed.),Signal detection and recognition by human observers: Contemporary readings. New York: Wiley, 1964.Google Scholar
  91. Teller, D.Y., & Galanter, E. Brightness, luminances,and Fechner’s paradox. Perception & Psychophysics, 1967, 2, 297–300.Google Scholar
  92. Thomas, G. J. The effect on criticalflicker frequency of interocular differences in intensity and phase relations of flashes of light. American Journal of Psychology, 1954, 67, 632–646.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Thomas, G. J. A comparison of uniocular and binocular critical flicker frequencies: Simultaneous and alternate flashes. American Journal of Psychology, 1955, 68, 37–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Thomas, G. J. Effect of contours on binocular CFF obtained with synchronous and alternate flashes. American Journal of Psychology, 1956, 69, 369–377.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Thomson, L. C. Binocular summation within the nervous pathways of the pupillary light reflex. Journal of Physiology, 1947, 106, 59–65.Google Scholar
  96. Townsend, J. T. Binocular information summation and the serial processing model. Perception & Psychophysics. 1968, 4, 125–128.Google Scholar
  97. Vernon, M. D. The binocular perception of flicker. British Journal of Psychology, 1934, 24, 251–274.Google Scholar
  98. Wald, G. Area and visual threshold. Journal of General Physiology. 1938, 21, 269–287.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Walls, G. L. A theory of ocular dominance. Archives of Ophthalmology, 1951, 45. 387–412.Google Scholar
  100. Westendorf, D. H., Blake, R. R., & Fox, R. Binocular summation of equal-energy flashes of unequal duration. Perception & Psychophysics, 1972. 12, 445–448.Google Scholar
  101. Whittle, P., & Challands, P. D. C. The effect of background luminance on the brightness of flashes. Vision Research. 1969, 9, 1095–1110.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Wolf, E., & Zigler, M. J. Uniocular and binocular scotopic responsiveness of the peripheral retina. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1959, 49, 394–398.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Wolf, E., & Zigler. M. J. Effects of uniocular and binocular excitation of the peripheral retina with test fields of various shapes on binocular summation. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1963, 53, 1199–1205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Wolf, E., & Zigler, M. J. Excitation of the peripheral retina with coincident and disparate test fields. Journal of the Optical Society of America. 1965, 55, 1517–1519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Woodworth, R. S., & Schlosberg, H.Experimental psychology New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1954.Google Scholar
  106. Zigler, M. J., & Wolf, E. Scotopic parafoveal sensitivity. American Journal of Psychology, 1958, 71. 186–198.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • Randolph Blake
    • 2
  • Robert Fox
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyBaylor College of MedicineHouston
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyVanderbilt UniversityNashville

Personalised recommendations