The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measurement and modeling of depth cue combination: in defense of weak fusion
Open accessAbstract
Various visual cues provide information about depth and shape in a scene. When several of these cues are simultaneously available in a single location in the scene, the visual system attempts to combine them. In this paper, we discuss three key issues relevant to the experimental analysis of depth cue combination in human vision: cue promotion, dynamic weighting of cues, and robustness of cue combination. We review recent psychophysical studies of human depth cue combination in light of these issues. We organize the discussion and review as the development of a model of the depth cue combination process termed modified weak fusion (MWF). We relate the MWF framework to Bayesian theories of cue combination. We argue that the MWF model is consistent with previous experimental results and is a parsimonious summary of these results. While the MWF model is motivated by normative considerations, it is primarily intended to guide experimental analysis of depth cue combination in human vision. We describe experimental methods, analogous to perturbation analysis, that permit us to analyze depth cue combination in novel ways. In particular these methods allow us to investigate the key issues we have raised. We summarize recent experimental tests of the MWF framework that use these methods.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bayesian decision theory and psychophysics
Yuille, A. L., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1996) · Perception as Bayesian Inference · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511984037.006 · Cited by 250 · cited 1×
“Yuille and Biilthoff (1995) demonstrate that some forms of weak coupling approximate a weighted linear rule of combination when cues are not too discrepant.”
Background
Cited by
Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion
Ernst, M. O., & Banks, M. S. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/415429a · Cited by 4,844
Merging the senses into a robust percept
Ernst, M. O., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2004) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.02.002 · Cited by 1,906
Object perception as Bayesian inference
Kersten, D., Mamassian, P., & Yuille, A. (2004) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142005 · Cited by 1,269
Combining Sensory Information: Mandatory Fusion Within, but Not Between, Senses
Hillis, J. M., Ernst, M. O., Banks, M. S., & Landy, M. S. (2002) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1075396 · Cited by 486
Self-citationNeural correlates of reliability-based cue weighting during multisensory integration
Fetsch, C. R., Pouget, A., DeAngelis, G. C., & Angelaki, D. E. (2012) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.2983 · Cited by 459
Metadata
- Authors
- Landy, M. S., Maloney, L. T., Johnston, E. B., & Young, M.
- Venue
- Vision Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1995-02
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 389-412
- ISSN
- 0042-6989 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2164182318
- Cited by
- 997
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measurement and modeling of depth cue combination: in defense of weak fusion. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0042-6989(94)00176-m
- The paper
- Landy, M. S., Maloney, L. T., Johnston, E. B., & Young, M. (1995). Measurement and modeling of depth cue combination: in defense of weak fusion. Vision Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(94)00176-m
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.