ArticleJournal of vision2019
Contributions of binocular and monocular cues to motion-in-depth perception.
Article in Journal of vision, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single-Trial fMRI Decoding of 3D Motion with Stereoscopic and Perspective Cues.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- Optimal Estimation of Local Motion-in-Depth with Naturalistic Stimuli.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- Ball-Flight Viewing Duration and Estimates of Passing Height in Baseball.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Hierarchical computation of 3D motion across macaque areas MT and FST.Cell reports · 2023Article
- Walking humans and running mice: perception and neural encoding of optic flow during self-motion.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Review
- Unusual Mathematical Approaches Untangle Nervous Dynamics.Biomedicines · 2022Review
- Perspective Cues Make Eye-specific Contributions to 3-D Motion Perception.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2021Article
- Cuttlefish use stereopsis to strike at prey.Science advances · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Intercepting and avoiding moving objects requires accurate motion-in-depth (MID) perception. Such motion can be estimated based on both binocular and monocular cues. Because previous studies largely characterized sensitivity to these cues individually, their relative contributions to MID perception remain unclear. Here we measured sensitivity to binocular, monocular, and combined cue MID stimuli using a motion coherence paradigm. We first confirmed prior reports of substantial variability in binocular MID cue sensitivity across the visual field. The stimuli were matched for eccentricity and speed, suggesting that this variability has a neural basis. Second, we determined that monocular MID cue sensitivity also varied considerably across the visual field. A major component of this variability was geometric: An MID stimulus produces the largest motion signals in the eye contralateral to its visual field location. This resulted in better monocular discrimination performance when the contralateral rather than ipsilateral eye was stimulated. Third, we found that monocular cue sensitivity generally exceeded, and was independent of, binocular cue sensitivity. Finally, contralateral monocular cue sensitivity was found to be a strong predictor of combined cue sensitivity. These results reveal distinct factors constraining the contributions of binocular and monocular cues to three-dimensional motion perception.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.