ArticleJournal of vision2026
Conflicting ordinal and metric depth information interferes with depth matching.
Article in Journal of vision, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Here, we investigate the effects of conflicting metric (binocular disparity) and ordinal (occlusion) depth information. In these experiments a virtual letter "A" was presented using a Microsoft HoloLens 2 optical-see through augmented reality display and was superimposed on a physical occluding surface with variable transparency. Observers performed a depth matching task and, for comparison, performed the same task without the occluder. Our results show that, when the surface was absent, or the letter was rendered in front of the surface, the letter was accurately localized. However, when the letter was rendered beyond the surface, observers progressively underestimated its distance. The magnitude of this error was modulated by the opacity of the occluding surface, but persisted even when additional depth information was provided by retinal size cues. Our results are well modeled using a Bayesian cue combination model with a uniform prior for letter positions in front of the surface and a non-uniform prior with a Gaussian fall-off for letter positions beyond the surface. These findings underscore the strong influence of incorrect occlusion arrangements, capable of distorting perceived depth even when binocular disparity is available.
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.