Correlation Engine 2.0
Clear Search sequence regions


  • 4 and (1)
  • across (4)
  • box so (1)
  • brain (2)
  • Ch 1 (1)
  • Ch 2 (2)
  • cite (1)
  • cognitive (70)
  • companion (1)
  • conflict (1)
  • conscious (5)
  • depth percept (1)
  • direct (4)
  • environment find (1)
  • Ernst (1)
  • flow (1)
  • follow up study (1)
  • function so (1)
  • gold (2)
  • head movements (1)
  • helps (5)
  • human (4)
  • images 3d (2)
  • improves (1)
  • judgement (2)
  • kind (1)
  • learn (3)
  • let (1)
  • Mach (1)
  • Marr (1)
  • minor (1)
  • monocular vision (2)
  • move (11)
  • move hand (1)
  • move head (2)
  • movements (15)
  • NeRFs (1)
  • neurons (1)
  • nose (1)
  • past (3)
  • percept (15)
  • percept time (1)
  • reach (1)
  • relationship object (1)
  • research (1)
  • retina (2)
  • rubber (2)
  • SA 4 (1)
  • screen (5)
  • signals (3)
  • size normal (1)
  • stand (1)
  • stereopsis (9)
  • think (10)
  • tilts head (1)
  • transform (2)
  • turn (3)
  • understand (5)
  • vision (136)
  • vision binocular (1)
  • vision disparities (4)
  • visual cortex (2)
  • visual field (15)
  • work out (1)
  • Sizes of these terms reflect their relevance to your search.

    Since Kepler and Descartes in the early-1600s, vision science has been committed to a triangulation model of stereo vision. But in the early-1800s, we realized that disparities are responsible for stereo vision. And we have spent the past 200 years trying to shoe-horn disparities back into the triangulation account. The first part of this article argues that this is a mistake, and that stereo vision is a solution to a different problem: the eradication of rivalry between the two retinal images, rather than the triangulation of objects in space. This leads to a 'minimal theory of 3D vision', where 3D vision is no longer tied to estimating the scale, shape, and direction of objects in the world. The second part of this article then asks whether the other aspects of 3D vision, which go beyond stereo vision, really operate at the same level of visual experience as stereo vision? I argue they do not. Whilst we want a theory of real-world 3D vision, the literature risks giving us a theory of picture perception instead. And I argue for a two-stage theory, where our purely internal 'minimal' 3D percept (from stereo vision) is linked to the world through cognition. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'New approaches to 3D vision'.

    Citation

    Paul Linton. Minimal theory of 3D vision: new approach to visual scale and visual shape. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences. 2022 Dec 13;378(1869):20210455

    Expand section icon Mesh Tags


    PMID: 36511406

    View Full Text