Cited by 422Visual perception and processing mechanismsAdvanced Vision and ImagingMultisensory perception and integration

Slant from texture and disparity cues: Optimal cue combination

Open access
Hillis, James M., Watt, Simon J., Landy, Michael S., Banks, Martin S.·2004·Journal of Vision

Abstract

How does the visual system combine information from different depth cues to estimate three-dimensional scene parameters? We tested a maximum-likelihood estimation (MLE) model of cue combination for perspective (texture) and binocular disparity cues to surface slant. By factoring the reliability of each cue into the combination process, MLE provides more reliable estimates of slant than would be available from either cue alone. We measured the reliability of each cue in isolation across a range of slants and distances using a slant-discrimination task. The reliability of the texture cue increases as |slant| increases and does not change with distance. The reliability of the disparity cue decreases as distance increases and varies with slant in a way that also depends on viewing distance. The trends in the single-cue data can be understood in terms of the information available in the retinal images and issues related to solving the binocular correspondence problem. To test the MLE model, we measured perceived slant of two-cue stimuli when disparity and texture were in conflict and the reliability of slant estimation when both cues were available. Results from the two-cue study indicate, consistent with the MLE model, that observers weight each cue according to its relative reliability: Disparity weight decreased as distance and |slant| increased. We also observed the expected improvement in slant estimation when both cues were available. With few discrepancies, our data indicate that observers combine cues in a statistically optimal fashion and thereby reduce the variance of slant estimates below that which could be achieved from either cue alone. These results are consistent with other studies that quantitatively examined the MLE model of cue combination. Thus, there is a growing empirical consensus that MLE provides a good quantitative account of cue combination and that sensory information is used in a manner that maximizes the precision of perceptual estimates.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1167/4.12.1

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Adults integrate texture and disparity cues to reduce the uncertainty of their estimates of slant, adjusting their relative weightings as they change in reliability.

    “Adults integrate texture and disparity cues to reduce the uncertainty of their estimates of slant, adjusting their relative weightings as they change in reliability (3).”

    From Fusion of visual cues is not mandatory in children (2010) · cites this paper as [3]

  • Human adults can reduce sensory uncertainty by integrating estimates, both across modalities and within a modality.

    “Human adults can reduce sensory uncertainty by integrating estimates, both across modalities (1, 2) (e.g., integrating vision and touch to judge size) and within a modality (3) (e.g., integrating visual stereoscopic and texture information to judge surface slant).”

    From Fusion of visual cues is not mandatory in children (2010) · cites this paper as [3]

  • The study's assumptions and approach are based on previous more detailed validation of similar stimuli.

    “Our assumptions and approach are based on previous more detailed validation of similar stimuli (3).”

    From Fusion of visual cues is not mandatory in children (2010) · cites this paper as [3]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hillis, J. M., Watt, S. J., Landy, M. S., & Banks, M. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Bangor University (GB)
  • New York University (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
Venue
Journal of Vision
Published
2004-12-01
Volume
4
Issue
12
Pages
1
ISSN
1534-7362 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2158527951
Cited by
421
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 28
FWCI
7.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Vision (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Eye Institute (R01EY012851, EY 08266, EY12851, R01EY008266)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Vision and Imaging
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
Keywords
surface slant perception, cue combination, binocular disparity, maximum likelihood estimation, cue reliability, perceptual precision, depth perception
MeSH terms
Cues, Depth Perception, Form Perception, Humans, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Vision, Binocular, Vision Disparity, Likelihood Functions

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