Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 53–68 | Cite as

On utrocular discrimination

  • Randolph Blake
  • Robert H. Cormack


Observers with good stereoacuity judged which eye received sine-wave grating patterns in a two-category forced-choice procedure. Large individual differences were found, but for most observers reliable discrimination was achieved at low spatial frequencies. No observer could perform the task above chance levels at high spatial frequencies. Discrimination was unaffected by retinal location, grating orientation, grating contrast, stimulus duration, or practice with feedback. Among observers who could perform the task, the following results were obtained: (1) Introduction of high spatial frequency components did not interfere with performance so long as a low spatial frequency component was present. (2) When gratings of low equal spatial frequency were presented to both eyes simultaneously at different contrast levels, observers could identify which eye received the higher contrast. (3) At low spatial frequencies, observers could distinguish monocular from binocular presentation. (4) Temporal frequency variations (counterphase flicker) influenced performance for some observers. Binocular summation and interocular transfer were unaffected by the spatial frequency variations which modulate utrocular discrimination. A new procedure for measuring stereopsis was developed which made possible comparison of utrocular discrimination with stereopsis at specific spatial frequencies. Stereopsis appeared mildly affected by spatial frequency.


  1. Barlow, H. B., Blakemore, C, &Pettigrew, J. D. The neural mechanism of binocular depth discrimination.Journal of Physiology, 1967,193, 327–342.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrett, G. V., &Williamson, T. R. Judging with which eye one is viewing a three dimensional scene.Perceptual & Motor Skills, 1965,21, 455–458.Google Scholar
  3. Berkley, M. A., Kitterle, F., &Watkins, D. W. Grating visibility as a function of orientation and retinal eccentricity.Vision Research, 1975,15, 239–244.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Biake, R., &Cormack, R. Psychophysical evidence for a monocular visual cortex in stereoblind humans.Science, 1979,203, 274–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blake, R., &Fox, R. The psychophysical inquiry into binocular summation.Perception & Psychophysics, 1973,14, 161–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blake, R., &Hirsch, H. V. B. Binocular depth discrimination in normal and specially-reared cats.Science, 1975,190, 1114–1116.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Blake, R., &Levinson, E. Spatial properties of binocular neurones in the human visual system.Experimental Brain Research, 1977,27, 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blakemore, C. A new kind of stereoscopic vision.Vision Research, 1970,10, 1181–1199.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Brindley, G. S.Physiology of the retina and visual pathway (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1970.Google Scholar
  10. Campbell, F. W., &Green, D. G. Monocular versus binocular visual acuity.Nature, 1965,208, 191–192.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell, F. W., Howell, E. R. &Robson, J. G. The appearance of gratings with and without the fundamental Fourier component.Journal of Physiology (London), 1971,217, 17–18P.Google Scholar
  12. Enoch, J., Goldmann, H., &Sunga, R. The ability to distinguish which eye was stimulated by light.Investigative Ophthalmology, 1969,8, 317–331.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Fiorentini, A., &Maffei, L. Binocular depth perception with-out geometrical cues.Vision Research, 1971,11, 1299–1305.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. GREGORY, R. L.Eye and brain, the psychology of seeing (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.Google Scholar
  15. Harmon, L. D., &Julesz, B. Masking in visual recognition: Effects of two-dimensional filtered noise.Science, 1973,180, 1194–1197.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hess, R. Interocular transfer in individuals with strabismic amblyopia; a cautionary note.Perception, 1978,7, 201–205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ikeda, H., &Wright, M. J. Processing of spatial and temporal information in the visual system. In F. O. Schmitt & F. G. Worden (Eds.),The neurosciences, third study program. Cambridge, Mass; MIT Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  18. Kelly, D. H. Effects of sharp edges on the visibility of sinusoidal gratings.Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1970,60, 98–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kulikowski, J. J., &Tolhurst, D. J. Psychophysical evidence for sustained and transient detectors in human vision.Journal of Physiology, 1973,232, 149–162.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Legge, G. E. Sustained and transient mechanisms in human vision: Temporal and spatial properties.Vision Research, 1978,18, 69–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Lema, S. A., &Blake, R. Binocular summation in normal and stereoblind humans.Vision Research, 1977,17, 691–695.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Mitchell, D. E., &Ware, C. Interocular transfer of a visual aftereffect in normal and stereoblind humans.Journal of Physiology, 1974,236, 707–721.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Movshon, J. A., Chambers, B. E. I., &Blakemore, C. Interocular transfer in normal humans and those who lack stereopsis.Perception, 1972,1, 483–490.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Nikara, T., Bishop, P. O., &Pettigrew, J. D. Analysis of retinal units in cat striate cortex.Experimental Brain Research, 1968,6, 353–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ogle, K. N.Researches in binocular vision. New York: Hafner, 1950.Google Scholar
  26. Packwood, J., &Gordon, B. Stereopsis in normal domestic cat, Siamese cat, and cat raised with alternate monocular occlusion.Journal of Neurophysiology, 1975,38, 1485–1499.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Pickersgill, M. J. On knowing with which eye one is seeing.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1961,13, 168–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rose, D. Monocular versus binocular contrast thresholds for movement and pattern.Perception, 1978,7, 195–200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Schade, O. H. Optical and photoelectric analog of the eye.Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1956,46, 721–739.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Sherman, S. M., Hoffman, K. P., &Stone, J. Loss of a specific cell type from dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus in visually deprived cats.Journal of Physiology, 1972,35, 532–541.Google Scholar
  31. Smith, S. Utrocular or ‘which eye’ discrimination.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1945,35, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stromeyer, C. F., &Julesz, B. Spatial-frequency masking in vision: Critical bands and spread of masking.Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1972,62, 1221 -1232.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Templeton, W. B., &Green, F. A. Chance results in utrocular discrimination.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968,20, 200–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Thelin, E., &Altman, E. R. Identification of monocular functions.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1929,1, 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wade, N. J. On interocular transfer of the movement after-effect in individuals with and without normal binocular vision.Perception, 1976,4, 85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ware, C. &Mitchell, D. E. On interocular transfer of various visual aftereffects in normal and stereoblind observers.Vision Research, 1974,14, 731–734.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Randolph Blake
    • 1
  • Robert H. Cormack
    • 2
  1. 1.Cresap Neuroscience LaboratoryNorthwestern UniversityEvanston
  2. 2.New Mexico Institute of Mining and TechnologySocorro

Personalised recommendations