Panum’s fusional area estimated with a criterion-free technique

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
It has been reported that criterion-free estimates of the upper disparity limits for fusion of line targets are small enough to be accounted for by monocular vernier sensitivity. However, targets such as lines, which contain high spatial frequencies, may ensure small fusion limits, since fusion limits obtained with criterion-dependent methods for narrow-band targets, such as sinusoids or difference-of-Gaussian luminance profiles, are proportional to target spatial periods. Experiment 1 therefore explored whether criterion-free methods give fusion limits for narrow-band targets that can be accounted for by vernier sensitivity. Vertical fusion limits were estimated by a method that forced observers to discriminate a disparate sinusoidal grating from an immediately adjacent zero-disparity grating. Fusion limits were too large to be explained by monocular vernier thresholds obtained for the same targets. In addition, fusion limits were not affected by large changes in target contrast, whereas vernier thresholds increased as contrast was decreased. The results of Experiment 1 also argued against interocular suppression as the cause of single vision, since vernier offsets that were visible when viewed monocularly were invisible under binocular viewing conditions. In Experiment 2, manual adjustment of disparities yielded fusion limits little different from those obtained with the forced-choice method of Experiment 1, demonstrating that it is possible to design adjustment methods for assessing fusion limits that are as sensitive as forced-choice methods. In Experiment 3, large reductions in target contrast, which have the effect of decreasing disparity sensitivity, did not alter fusion limits, disconfirming the idea that fusion limits estimated with discriminative procedures represent disparity-detection thresholds. In Experiment 4, disparities were adjusted until a just noticeable difference in grating contrast appeared. These disparities were larger than fusion limits, indicating that fusion limits did not represent a change in apparent contrast arising from disparity limitations of binocular summation. Together, the four experiments support the existence of binocular fusion as a unique category of sensory performance, disconfirm several nonfusional explanations of single vision, and support the use of criterion-free as well as adjustment methods in measuring fusion limits.