ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2023
Stereopsis without correspondence.
Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of visual outcomes between bilateral EDOF IOL implantation and combined EDOF and bifocal IOL implantation.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Human and artificial visual systems share a computational principle for transforming binocular disparity into depth representation.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Development of the Binocular Circuit.Annual review of neuroscience · 2024Review
- Ocular Necessities: A Neuroethological Perspective on Vertebrate Visual Development.Brain, behavior and evolution · 2024Review
- New Approaches to 3D Vision.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stereopsis has traditionally been considered a complex visual ability, restricted to large-brained animals. The discovery in the 1980s that insects, too, have stereopsis, therefore, challenged theories of stereopsis. How can such simple brains see in three dimensions? A likely answer is that insect stereopsis has evolved to produce simple behaviour, such as orienting towards the closer of two objects or triggering a strike when prey comes within range. Scientific thinking about stereopsis has been unduly anthropomorphic, for example assuming that stereopsis must require binocular fusion or a solution of the stereo correspondence problem. In fact, useful behaviour can be produced with very basic stereoscopic algorithms which make no attempt to achieve fusion or correspondence, or to produce even a coarse map of depth across the visual field. This may explain why some aspects of insect stereopsis seem poorly designed from an engineering point of view: for example, paying no attention to whether interocular contrast or velocities match. Such algorithms demonstrably work well enough in practice for their species, and may prove useful in particular autonomous applications. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'New approaches to 3D vision'.
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.