Abstract
Visual form identification was studied under conditions where the forms to be identified were presented briefly to the right and left eyes alone, to the right and left eye simultaneously on corresponding areas, and to the right and left eye sequentially on corresponding areas. The results suggest the following conclusions: (1) successive stimulation of the two eyes is better than either eye alone if the stimulation falls on corresponding areas; (2) successive stimulation of corresponding areas is about identical to simultaneously stimulated corresponding areas; and (3) the amount of gain in identification accuracy resulting from stimulation to the two eyes was not greater than can be attributed to two independent opportunities to perceive.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bouman, M. A. On foveal and peripheral interaction in binocular vision. Optica Acta, 1955, 1, 177–183.
Eriksen, C. W. Independence of successive inputs and uncorrelated error in visual form perception. J. exp. Psychol., in press.
Hartline, H. K. Intensity and duration in the excitation of single photoreceptor units. J. cell. comp. Physiol., 1934, 5, 229–247.
Kahneman, D., & Norman, J. The time-intensity relation in visual perception as a function of observer’s task. J. exp. Psychol., 1964, 68, 215–220.
Levelt, W. J. M. Binocular brightness averaging and contour information. Brit. J. Psychol., 1965, 56, 1–13.
Pirenne, M. H. Binocular and uniocular thresholds of vision. Nature, 1943, 48, 43–63.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Carlson, W.A., Eriksen, C.W. Dichopic summation of information in the recognition of briefly presented forms. Psychon Sci 5, 67–68 (1966). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03328283
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03328283