The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Slant from texture and disparity cues: Optimal cue combination
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
Citations
Cites
(1966) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 10,293
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
Self-citationComputational Geometry: Algorithms and Applications
de Berg, M., Cheong, O., van Kreveld, M. J., & Overmars, M. H. (1997) · CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · Cited by 4,450
Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning
Körding, K. P., & Wolpert, D. M. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02169 · Cited by 2,004
The Ventriloquist Effect Results from Near-Optimal Bimodal Integration
Alais, D., & Burr, D. (2004) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2004.01.029 · Cited by 1,936
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
Measurement and modeling of depth cue combination: in defense of weak fusion
Landy, M. S., Maloney, L. T., Johnston, E. B., & Young, M. (1995) · Vision Research · doi:10.1016/0042-6989(94)00176-m · Cited by 996
Self-citationGoodwin, C. (1995) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/030631295025002002 · Cited by 620
When Feeling Is More Important Than Seeing in Sensorimotor Adaptation
van Beers, R. J., Wolpert, D. M., & Haggard, P. (2002) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/s0960-9822(02)00836-9 · Cited by 560
Researches in Binocular Vision
(1951) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1951.02920280080027 · Cited by 537
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Faisal, A. A., Selen, L. P. J., & Wolpert, D. M. (2008) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2258 · Cited by 2,883
The Bayesian brain: The role of uncertainty in neural coding and computation
Knill, D. C., & Pouget, A. (2004) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/j.tins.2004.10.007 · Cited by 2,588
Vergence–accommodation conflicts hinder visual performance and cause visual fatigue
Hoffman, D. M., Girshick, A. R., Akeley, K., & Banks, M. S. (2008) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/8.3.33 · Cited by 1,641
Self-citationVisual Discomfort and Visual Fatigue of Stereoscopic Displays: A Review
Lambooij, M., Fortuin, M. F., Heynderickx, I. E. J., & IJsselsteijn, W. A. (2009) · Journal of Imaging Science and Technology · doi:10.2352/j.imagingsci.technol.2009.53.3.030201 · Cited by 1,006
Bayesian decision theory in sensorimotor control
Kording, K. P., & Wolpert, D. M. (2006) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.05.003 · Cited by 916
Metadata
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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
