PSYCHOLOGY Psychology & Neuroscience, 2008, 1, 2, 167-175

DOI: 10.3922/j.psns.2008.2.009
NEUROSCIENCE

The role of vertical disparities in the oblique effect

J. Antonio Aznar-Casanova1, Aurora Torrents2 and Nelson Torro Alves3
1 University of Barcelona, Spain
2 Universitat Politécnica de Catalunya, Spain
3 Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Brazil.

Abstract
A great deal of studies using different visual tasks (e.g., Vernier acuity tasks, tilt illusion, crowding, etc) have revealed that
our perception is strongly influenced by the orientation of the stimulus. Most studies have investigated visual acuity in two-
dimensional visual spaces (2D) but little is known about the effect of line orientation in depth perception (3D). In one experiment,
Vernier Acuity (VA) in frontoparallel (2D) and medial (3D) planes was investigated. We used a virtual reality setup inducing
inter-ocular disparities to simulate a 3D visual space, and a common computer screen to present stimuli in the frontal plane. In
the experiment, by using the method of constant stimuli, the observer compared VA in the 2D and 3D visual spaces as a function
of the stimulus orientation. Results showed that only judgments in the 3D condition were affected by the well-known ‘oblique
effect’, and some impairment in stereoacuity (lines in depth plane) in comparison to 2D acuity (lines in frontal plane) was
observed. We attributed the cause for such deterioration in stereoacuity to changes in vertical disparities. Keywords: binocular
vision, depth perception, stereoacuity, vernier acuity.

Received 13 December 2007; received in revised form 30 September 2008; accepted 16 October 2008. Available online xx December 2008

Introduction to oblique axes. The oblique effect can be found in

a great variety of visual tasks (e.g. grating acuity,
The visual system exhibits several anisotropies, Landolt C test, Vernier acuity, contrast sensitivity,
and according to Campbell and Kulikowski (1966) orientation discrimination, motion direction, etc.). As
and Maffei and Campbell (1970) such anisotropies far as animal research is concerned, several studies
have a neural basis. One example of them is the have shown evidence for a preferential processing of
inhomogeneous spatial resolution in the visual field horizontal and vertical stimuli. Monkeys, in particular,
(De Valois & De Valois, 1988). Another type of show a clear oblique effect (Bauer, Owens, Thomas,
anisotropy is related to the perceived orientation of & Held, 1979), but also the octopus, the goldfish, the
pictorial elements, such as lines, gratings, and edges. pigeon, the rabbit, the squirrel, the rat, the cat, and the
Certainly, horizontal and vertically oriented lines are chimpanzee (see Appelle, 1972 for a review of the early
more accurately perceived than oblique lines. literature on the topic). Nowadays, such effect has not
In the past, studies with human beings on orientation been completely explained either by psychophysical or
of stimuli revealed the well-known oblique effect (see neurophysiological approaches.
­Appelle, 1972 and Howard, 1982 for a review). It refers Earlier reports on the oblique effect were described
to the well-established fact that our discriminability of by Mach (1861) and Jastrow (1893), who asked
orientation or direction is significantly better around observers to copy visually presented lines or to adjust
the cardinal (horizontal or vertical) axes compared them to a specific orientation. Three decades later,
Emsley (1925) found that the point of best visual acuity
J. Antonio Aznar-Casanova - Department of Basic takes place in horizontal and vertical orientations, when
Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Barcelona, compared to stimuli oriented at 45º or between 110º to
Spain. Aurora Torrents - Departament d’Optica i Optometria. 140º. This effect was initially attributed to astigmatism,
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Spain. Nelson T. Alves but even after correcting lenses were fit to the subject,
- Departamento de Psicologia. Universidade Federal da the phenomenon remained and was termed ‘residual
Paraíba, João Pessoa, Brazil. Correspondence regarding this
astigmatism’. More recently, Westheimer (2005)
article should be directed to: J. Antonio Aznar-Casanova
measured Vernier acuity for lines varying in orientation
- Department of Basic Psychology, Faculty of Psychology,
University of Barcelona, Spain Passeig Vall d’Hebron, 171, and found that the threshold was 2.29 times greater (less
08035 - Barcelona (SPAIN); Tel: +34 93 3125017; Fax: +34 sensitivity) for lines presented obliquely. Additionally,
93 4021363; E-mail: jaznar2@ub.edu visual acuity was better to horizontal than vertical lines.
168 Aznar-Casanova, Torrents and Alves

Interestingly, one experiment conducted by Higgins influences on postnatal development of an organism.’’

and Stultz (1948) revealed that tilting the head of the (Keil & Cristobal, 2000, p. 697). Thus, the perception of
observer up to align the visual field to the orientation of orientation could be ‘‘determined by the relative frequency
the lines improved VA. These results suggested that the of the possible sources of angle projections that observers
retinal image orientation was more important than the have experienced.’’ (Nundy, Lotto, Coppola, Shimpi, &
object orientation. However, subsequent studies have Purves, 2000, p. 5592).
been ambiguous on this point (Luria, 1963; Attneave & The rationale for such explanation is based on
Olson, 1967; Horn & Hill, 1969). the idea that only oblique orientations cause vertical
From the psychophysical approach, research has disparities. Indeed, images have vertical disparities
produced robust evidence to suggest that the human because the distance between a given point to one eye is
perception of oblique lines is somewhat inferior to the greater than that to the other eye. As a consequence of this
perception of horizontal and vertical lines (Campbell asymmetrical convergence, the amplitude of the binocular
& Kulikowski, 1966; Davidoff, 1974; Essock, 1990; subtense angle of these two points is unequal for the left
Heeley & Timney, 1988; Zlaskova, 1993). Research eye and right eye (Howard & Rogers, 2002). Therefore,
using sinusoidal grating as stimuli have shown that the the binocular vertical disparity can be computed by
accuracy and the precision for high spatial frequencies the difference between the amplitudes of the binocular
or low contrast is worse for oblique than for cardinal subtense angle in the eyes.
orientations (Bowker & Mandler, 1981). Research using Ogle (1955) demonstrated that, besides horizontal
oriented lines (Andrews, 1967; Bouma & Andriessen, disparities, vertical disparities could elicit stereoscopic
1968; Westheimer & Beard, 1998) has also revealed depth. He also showed some deterioration in the
the oblique effect both in accuracy (e.g., constant error) stereoscopic depth perception as the increase of vertical
and precision (e.g., standard deviation). That is why the disparities takes place. However, he found that it
oblique effect is currently thought to be one of the most decreases down to a null value, beyond which stereopsis
robust effects in human psychophysics. does not occur, with the increasing of the peripheral
From the neurophysiological approach, research angle of the stimulus. Therefore, according to Ogle, the
on the oblique effect has been interested in providing existence of definite limits in the extent to which both
evidence on its underlying neural mechanisms. It began horizontal and vertical disparities may be introduced,
with the discovery of orientation detectors in the visual without abolishing stereoscopic depth, suggests the
cortex of cats and monkeys by Hubel and Wiesel (1959, existence of neuroanatomical limiting structures and a
1977), and Pettigrew, Nikara and Bishop (1968). Since neurophysiological process for stereopsis.
then, a great deal of studies have shown that in the In order to verify the role of vertical disparities
visual cortex of animals there are more cells responding in the oblique effect, we conducted a psychophysical
to horizontal and vertical than to oblique orientations experiment using two parallel oriented lines, in
(DeValois, Yund, & Hepler, 1982; Kennedy, Martin, which two-dimensional (2D) Vernier acuity and
Orban, & Whitteridge, 1985; Mansfield & Ronner, 1978; three-dimensional (3D) stereoacuity were compared.
Coppola, White, Fitzpatrick, & Purves, 1998; Keil & In the case of 2D visual acuity, the observer was
Cristobal, 2000). As far as neuroscience is concerned, asked to judge vertical separation, while in the case
Maffei and Campbell (1970) found an oblique effect in of 3D visual acuity (stereoacuity), the participant
humans by means of visual evoked potential, and Li, was asked to perform judgments about the separation
Peterson and Freeman (2003) analysed a population of of the lines in depth. Obviously, in the perception
4,418 cells in the striate cortex of the cat. They found of a 3D visual scene, lines oriented 90º practically
that both quantity of cells and bandwidth of orientation do not present vertical disparity. On the other hand,
tuning varied as a function of the preferred orientation. oblique lines produce vertical disparities which vary
They demonstrated that most cells prefer horizontal and in accordance to the stimulus orientation. In the case
vertical orientations to oblique angles. of 2D visual acuity, variations in vertical disparities
Summarizing the above, the oblique effect can be are practically negligible.
explained by a higher number of neurons available for
processing horizontal and vertical orientations relative Experiment: Method
to oblique ones. This imbalance in the allocation of
resources is translated into higher visual acuity at cardinal Subjects
orientations. An alternative explanation, however, Four female observers (mean age of 28 years and
emphasizes the evolutionary influence of the layout of s.d. = 3.6), with normal (or corrected to normal) visual
objects in the world. According to Keil and Cristobal acuity (20/20) and stereoacuity (at least 60 sec arc,
(2000) this implies ‘‘that the physical structure of the according to Titmus test) took part in the experiment.
environment provides constraints for the evolutionary This study was conducted in accordance with the norms
process, and it is this structure that also exerts strong of the local ethical committee.
Vertical disparities & Oblique effect 169

Figure 1. Standard stimulus used in the case of 2D Vernier acuity for 0º orientation.

Stimuli 14 tests, seven for 2D Vernier acuity and other seven

Standard stimuli consisted of two 50 mm-long for stereoacuity. A specific program, according to the
parallel red lines against a black background. Depending method of constant stimuli, was elaborated for each
on the experimental condition the lines could be oriented one of the seven orientations (0º, 15º, 30º, 45º, 60º, 75º,
at 0º, 15º, 30º, 45º, 60º, 75º and 90º. As Figure 1 shows, 90º). A chinrest allowed us to control head position and
in the case of Vernier acuity (2D stimuli), the horizontal distance of the observer to the stimulus.
(∆H) and vertical (∆V) separations were kept constant to
15 mm and 16 mm, respectively, in all orientations. In the Procedure
case of stereoacuity, the separation in depth (∆D) was fit The observer was seated in a chair in front of the
to 20 mm, and the length of the lines and the horizontal computer, with his head on the chinrest. The screen was
separation between them (∆H) were kept constant. positioned in the frontoparallel plane and stimuli were
In the case of 2D stimuli, nine comparison stimuli registered fixating the gaze directly on them (i.e., central
were equal to the standard stimulus except that the vertical visual field). The room was dimly lit (4 cd/m2). The
separation between the two lines could vary between 12 and participant was instructed for a brief period of training (20
20 mm, with 1 mm increases (12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, trials) to respond to the stimuli, according to the method of
20). Since the viewer’s distance from the screen was 1 m, the constant stimuli, by clicking with the left (longer) or the
subtended visual angle of the lines of the standard stimulus right (shorter) button of the mouse. After this training, the
was 2.86º, being 0.86º the horizontal separation and 0.92º (or observer was asked to perform 14 tests, which consisted of
55 min arc) the vertical separation. Vertical separations of two visual conditions, namely, the 2D Vernier acuity and
the comparison stimuli varied from 41.25 to 68.75 min arc. the 3D stereoacuity; in each one of them the lines were
As for the 3D stimuli, the comparison stimuli varied presented in seven different orientations. We will refer to
only in the separation in depth (∆D), which could randomly the test composed by nine vertical separations repeated
range from 12 to 28 mm in steps of 2 mm (12, 14, 16, 18, eight times (72 trials) as an orientation block.
20, 22, 24, 26, 28). That is to say, the angular separation The task of the observer consisted of deciding
in depth varied from 41.25 to 96.23 min arc, with steps whether the bars of the comparison stimulus were more
of 6.87 min arc. The steps were greater in this condition or less separated than the bars of the standard stimulus
because the judgments are more difficult to be performed. (two-alternative forced choice experimental paradigm),
The color used for the Vernier lines was always red. by clicking on the right and left buttons of the mouse,
All stimuli were generated and displayed by using respectively. Of course, in the case of 2D Vernier acuity,
a PC Pentium V 3000 MHz, with a 3D-Lab Wildcat VP the participant attended to the vertical separation (∆V),
870 stereo graphic card. Stereoscopic stimuli (3D case) whereas in the case of 3D stereoacuity, the participant
were presented by means of shooter goggles (LCD) by attended to the separation of the lines in depth. In an
CrystalEyes®. However, in the 2-D case, stimuli were orientation block, the trial sequence began with a short
seen without goggles (*). warning sound (a beep with a 100 ms duration and 500 Hz
A computer program written in C++ and the frequency), followed by the presentation of the standard
glut32 library under OpenGL generated and randomly stimulus (two oriented lines) on the screen for 1500 ms.
presented the stimuli in the experiment. We designed After a delay of 500 ms, the comparison stimulus was

Note (*) - We verified whether using goggles could affect both CE (Constant Error) and Weber Fraction for stimuli presented in
the orientations of 0º, 45º and 90º in the uncrossed disparity condition with regard to the case in which they were displayed on
the screen. Results for % (CE/POE), in case of the uncrossed disparity (with goggles) were 0º= 1.12; 45º= 3.38; 90º= 4.65 and,
as for Weber fractions, results were: 0º= 0.08; 45º= 0.15; 90º= 0.13. Therefore, by comparing these data in Tables 1 and 2 we
verified that these two visual conditions, namely, with and without goggles, were equivalent.
170 Aznar-Casanova, Torrents and Alves

then presented for 1500 ms. The observer had no time orientation of the lines. We fit a linear function to these
constraints to respond to the stimuli and 1 s after his points and Figure 2 shows the regression equation and
response a new trial was displayed. Each orientation block the determination coefficient for both 2D Vernier acuity
took around 10 min to be concluded. In the experimental and 3D stereoacuity. In the latter, the percentage of CE
sessions, each orientation block was presented three can be superior to 10%, whilst in the case of 2D the
times. The participant performed all the experiment in percentage of constant errors (%CE) was lower than 5%.
seven sessions of six blocks (14 blocks x 3 repetitions = In Figure 2, we can see an opposite trend between these
42 blocks). Three minutes of interval were given between two visual conditions, increasing from 0º to 90º in the
blocks to the participant, therefore each session lasted two-dimensional case, but decreasing from 0º to 90º in
90 min. In brief, the observer performed 3024 trials, the three-dimensional one. Therefore, these slopes reveal
involving 10 hours and 30 minutes of experiment. the influence of the orientation of the Vernier lines on the
Difference threshold was calculated as the between- accuracy for visual acuity. Thus, we have obtained a good
quartile half-difference in min arc by the formula: DT= linear fit in both cases, two-dimensional visual condition
(Q3 – Q1)/2 ; where Quartile 1 is the value for the (2D: R2= 0.80; S.E. = 0.66) and stereo or three-
proportion point equal to 0.25 and Quartile 3 is the value dimensional case (3D: R2= 0.95; S.E. = 0.87).
for the proportion point equal to 0.75. We want to highlight two details of these results.
First, in both visual conditions an oblique effect has
Results been found; that is to say, the percentage of the constant
error (%CE) increased and decreased, respectively, for
We measured the participant’s capability for the 2D and 3D conditions as a function of the orientation
discriminating line separation in 14 tests, which resulted of the lines. Second, this change surprisingly occurred
from the combination of two visual conditions (2D and 3D in an opposite sense with respect to the orientation.
separations) by seven orientations. Two psychophysical That is to say, we found a systematic trend toward some
parameters were used, one to indicate accuracy of the overestimation in the case of the 2D visual condition
comparison judgments (constant error) and another to and this trend was inverted (underestimation) in the case
indicate precision or sensitivity (difference threshold). of the 3D visual condition. More precisely, the slope
In Table 1, values of the Point of Subjective Equality shows an opposite trend, namely, in the 2D case, as the
(PSE) and constant error (CE) for all tests are presented. orientation increased, %CE also increased, whilst in the
Notice that we use the percentage of constant error 3D case, as the orientation increased, %CE decreased.
(%CE) with respect to the Point of Objective Equality Certainly, a significant difference between the slopes of
(POE), in order to enable the comparison between the the regression lines with respect to the null hypothesis
2D and 3D visual conditions. (0º inclination of the slope, which would indicate that
Figure 2 shows the percentage of CE by plotting the orientations do not affect the judgments) was found
two visual conditions (2D and 3D) as a function of the in both conditions: 2D VA [t(10)= 4.408; P<.007;

Table 1. Values of the Point of Subjective Equality (PSE) and Constant Error (CE) in millimetres (mm), minutes of arc (min arc), and
percentage of the CE with respect to the Point of Objective Equality (POE).

 Orientation PSE (mm) PSE (min arc) CE (mm) CE (min arc)  %(CE/POE)

0 16.19 55.65 0.19 0.65 1.19

15 16.28 55.95 0.28 0.95 1.74
30 16.43 56.47 0.43 1.47 2.68
45 16.52 56.78 0.52 1.78 3.23
60 16.74 57.54 0.74 2.54 4.62
75 16.50 56.72 0.50 1.72 3.13
90 16.77 57.65 0.77 2.65 4.83
0 17.72 60.91 -2.28 -7.83 -11.39
15 17.85 61.36 -2.15 -7.39 -10.75
30 18.18 62.49 -1.82 -6.26 -9.10
45 18.92 65.04 -1.08 -3.71 -5.39
60 18.88 64.90 -1.12 -3.84 -5.59
75 19.13 65.76 -0.87 -2.99 -4.35
90 19.66 67.58 -0.34 -1.17 -1.70
Vertical disparities & Oblique effect 171

S.E.= .008] and 3D stereo [t(10)= 9.82; P<.001; S.E.=

.011]. Alternatively, the percentage of constant error
(%CE_POE) was analyzed with an ANOVA taking
visual condition (2D and 3D) and orientation (0º, 15º,
30º, 45º, 60º, 75º, 90º) as between subjects factors and
each repetition block (3 blocks) as a new measure.
Mean percentage of the constant error for the two visual
conditions as a function of the orientation are plotted
in Figure 2. Overall, constant error varied with visual
condition [F(1,154)= 68.575; P<.001] and orientation
[F(1,154)= 2.354; P<.033]; however, the interaction
between these two factors was not significant [F(1,154)=
0.606; P>.60]. Therefore, in respect to accuracy (%CE), Figure 2. Percentages of Constant Error (CE) in relation
such factors operate in an independent way. to the Point of Objective Equality (POE) for the seven
In Table 2, we show the slopes of the psychometric orientations in the 2D and 3D visual conditions.
function, the uncertainty interval (UI), the differential
threshold (DT) and the Weber fraction (K). found between different orientations.
Figure 3 shows the psychometric functions, i.e., The difference threshold (DT) may be interpreted
the probability that the separation of the comparison as the reciprocal of the sensitivity (DT= 1/sensitivity).
stimuli was greater than the separation of the standard Therefore, a low value indicates a high capability to
stimulus (Cp > St) for each orientation. The slope of the discriminate the separation between stimuli (standard
psychometric function indicates the sensitivity (precision) and comparison). The Weber fraction (K= DT/POE,
of the observer in the task, where the greater the slope, where POE means Point of Objective Equality or
the higher the precision. Figure 3 shows, respectively, standard value) also informs us about the sensitivity,
all slopes for the 2D and 3D stimuli as a function of but not in a dimensional way. Figure 4 shows that in
the orientation of the lines. As we can see, slopes were both cases, in the 2D and 3D separations, values of the
greater for 2D stimuli, which implies a greater sensitivity differential threshold vary from 0º to 90º oriented lines.
of the participant in judging 2D than 3D separations. Surprisingly, such changes were not exactly the same for
Interestingly, in the case of 3D separations, the worst the different orientations. These figures (3 and 4) show
sensitivity was obtained for 0º oriented lines, which was that, in general, the discrimination was worse for judging
modulated by the orientation of the Vernier lines, while in 3D separations in comparison to 2D ones, particularly
the case of 2D separations no significant differences were for 0º oriented lines. These results are curious, because

Table 2. Slope values of the psychometric function, uncertainty interval (UI), differential threshold (DT), and Weber fraction (K).

Visual condition Orientation Slope UI (mm) DT (mm) DT (min arc) K (Weber)

2D 0º 1.99 2.69 1.53 5.27 0.09

2D 15º 2.37 3.19 1.88 6.45 0.11
2D 30º 2.23 3.00 1.93 6.63 0.12
2D 45º 2.66 3.59 2.31 7.94 0.14
2D 60º 2.13 2.88 2.18 7.49 0.13
2D 75º 2.24 3.02 2.01 6.91 0.12
2D 90º 2.21 2.98 2.26 7.78 0.13
3D 0º 9.46 12.77 4.28 14.71 0.19
3D 15º 6.99 9.43 3.74 12.85 0.14
3D 30º 4.99 6.73 1.80 6.19 0.15
3D 45º 5.14 6.94 2.04 7.02 0.12

3D 60º 5.47 7.38 2.63 9.03 0.12

3D 75º 5.39 7.27 2.05 7.06 0.13
3D 90º 5.10 6.88 2.55 8.76 0.17
172 Aznar-Casanova, Torrents and Alves

Figure 3. Psychometric functions for all orientations in the case of 2D separation judgements (left panel) and in the case of 3D one (right panel).

the worst discrimination in the 3D condition coincides DT is greater when vertical disparity is greater, but only if
with the lowest vertical disparity, i.e., 0º oriented lines. segments form an angle lower than 30º.
The difference threshold (DT) was analyzed with Figure 6 shows vertical disparities and Weber fraction
an ANOVA taking visual condition (2D and 3D) and (∆I/I) for the 3D condition and reveals a common trend
orientation (0º, 15º, 30º, 45º, 60º, 75º, 90º) as between between the lines, but only if the orientation is lower
subjects factors and each repetition block (3 blocks by 4 than 45º (Rxy = 0.83). As a result of the comparison,
participants, N= 12) as a new measure. Mean percentage we can conclude that the data fit well only if vertical
of DT for the two visual conditions as a function of the disparities are greater than horizontal ones.
orientation are plotted in Figure 4. Overall sensitivity
(DT) varied with visual condition [F(1,154)= 6.201; Discussion
P<.014]. However, neither the orientation [F(1,154)=
0.382; P<.89] nor the interaction between these two With the aim of studying the oblique effect, we
factors [F(1,154)= 0.823; P<.554] were significant. conducted one experiment in which the participant was asked
In brief, the most important result is that sensitivity to compare the separation of two lines in the frontoparallel
(DTs) varied according to visual condition. No differences (2D) and median planes (3D). We designed 14 tests by
between orientations were found, except when the combining 2 visual conditions and 7 orientations. The results
orientation was close to horizontality (lower than 30º). showed that, in both cases (2D and 3D separations), if the
In order to verify if the oblique effect influences the two lines were presented obliquely, visual acuity (2D VA)
perception of vertical disparities in a 3D visual condition, and stereoacuity (3D stereo VA) varied inversely, namely,
we calculated vertical disparities between lines for all overestimation in the 2D case and underestimation in the
orientations in the 3D condition (Figure 5). The segment 3D. In this last case, such variation was proportional to the
∇v represents the size of vertical disparities in cardinal (0º) cos (θ). Additionally, as the inclination of the lines increases,
[left panel] and oblique orientations (approximately 60º) the relative separation between them decreases, which
[right panel]. From this vertical disparity, we computed the promotes a diminishing of vertical disparities. Therefore, for
distance in depth (vertical separation) for all orientations orientations lower than 45º, the effect of vertical disparity
by ∇v= cos (θ) POE, where ∇v is the vertical disparity, θ progressively diminishes.
is the orientation of the lines, and POE = 20 mm (standard One evidence for vertical disparities as the main
value) for the 3D case. The values of the vertical disparities feature to be processed in the case of inclined lines, i.e.,
for each orientation are presented in Table 3. Notice that in favour of the oblique effect, are the similarities with the
so-called induced-effect (Ogle, 1950), in which two halves
of a stereogram are identical, except that one is magnified
vertically with respect to the other. According to Ogle, with
such stereogram the observer stereoscopically perceives
the image as a slanted surface rotated on its vertical axis. It
is also possible to promote the same impression of a slanted
surface by manipulating horizontal disparities, namely, by
magnifying one half of the stereogram horizontally. This
is the so-called geometrical effect (Ogle, 1950). However,
an important difference between those two effects is that
the depth sign of a given vertical disparity depends on the
Figure 4. Differential threshold for the 2D and 3D visual quadrant around the fixation point, while the depth sign of
conditions as a function of orientation of the lines. a given horizontal disparity is independent of the quadrants
Vertical disparities & Oblique effect 173

& Dow, 1989; Vidyasagar & Henry, 1990). This theory

naturally integrates the measurement and the interpretation
of vertical disparity, explains the induced effect and
local depth effects of vertical disparities, and suggests
a unified framework for understanding the relationship
between vertical and horizontal disparities. They have
also psychophysically confirmed two key predictions of
the theory by using stimuli oriented at 45º. One of them
has to do with the enhancement and cancellation between
horizontal and vertical disparities, and the other one shows
the dependence of the orientation on the vertical disparity.
Our results agree with this theory and give support to
the radial bias of the preferred-orientation distribution in
the cortex and beyond V1. And, more important, our data
confirm the prediction of this model, which associates the
effects of the vertical disparities to the orientation of the
Figure 5. Sketch illustrating the calculation of the vertical stimuli. We have certainly showed that, first, sensitivity
disparities in cardinal (0º) [left panel] and oblique (60º) [right is maximal (i.e., DT is lower) when vertical disparities
panel] orientations. are lower (lines oriented upper than 45º). Second, the
sensitivity is minimal for greater vertical disparities (lines
(Westheimer, 1984; Westheimer & Pettet, 1992). oriented at 0º). Third, that as vertical disparities diminish
It is widely accepted that the role of the vertical (until 45º), the stereoscopic sensitivity is enhanced.
disparity is essentially different from that of the horizontal Fourth, that vertical disparity can exhibit a local effect,
disparity. Indeed, vertical disparities are greater at larger besides the well-known global one. Nevertheless, not
eccentricities (Ogle, 1955); they do not have a consistent only the ending point of the lines has a relevant role
local sign (Matthews, Meng, Xu, & Qian, 2003); their in our experiment, but also the orientation of the lines.
effect can be demonstrated with large stimuli (Howard Indeed, one stereogram composed by lines oriented at
& Kaneko, 1994); and vertical disparities appear to be 0º and another composed by lines oriented at 90º can
averaged over greater areas than horizontal disparities have the same ending point (near the fixation point, in
(Kaneko & Howard, 1997). That is why most authors the center of the stereograms). However, the difference
think that vertical disparities act globally while horizontal in the orientation of the lines produce the opposite
disparities act locally (Howard & Rogers, 1995). effect, i.e., the maximal or the minimal sensitivity. This
In the last decades, a great deal of theories on vertical
disparity have been proposed after that by Ogle (1950),
such as those by Koenderink and van Doorn, (1976), Arditi,
Kaufman and Movshon (1981), Mayhew and Longuet-
Higgins (1982), Rogers and Bradshaw (1993), Howard
and Kaneko (1994), Backus, Banks, van Ee, and Crowell
(1999), and Garding, Porrill, Mayhew and Frisby (1995).
More recently, Matthews et al. (2003) proposed a theory for
depth perception from vertical disparity based on concepts of
the oriented binocular receptive fields of the visual cortical
cells developed by Freeman and collaborators (Anzai,
Ohzawa, & Freeman, 1999a, 1999b; DeAngelis, Ohzawa,
& Freeman, 1991; Ohzawa, DeAngelis, & Freeman,
Figure 6. Fitting functions for Weber fraction (K=∆I/I) and
1990, 1996, 1997) and in principles of the radial bias of vertical disparities (min arc) in the 3D condition as a function
the preferred-orientation distribution in the cortex (Bauer of the orientation of the lines.

Table 3. Vertical disparities for each segment orientation.

Orientation 0º 15º 30º 45º 60º 75º 90º

Vertical disparity (mm) 20.00 19.32 17.32 14.14 10.00 5.18 0.00

Horizontal disparity (mm) 0.00 5.18 10.00 14.14 17.32 19.32 20.00

Ratio (VD/HD) ∞ 3.73 1.73 1.00 0.58 0.27 0.00

174 Aznar-Casanova, Torrents and Alves

suggests that the global effect of the vertical disparity is line segment. Vision Research, 8, 493–507.
more powerful than the local effect. We expect to study, Bowker, D.O., & Mandler, M.B. (1981). Binocular flicker appears
faster than monocular flicker. Journal of the Optical Society of
in the future, the conflict between the sign of the depth America, 71, 496–498.
for the origin and ending points of the line, that is to say, Campbell, F.W., & Kulikowski, J.J. (1966). Orientational selectivity of
how these points cancel or enhance depth perception in the human visual system. Journal of Physiology, 187, 437–445.
Coppola, D.M., White, L.E., Fitzpatrick, D., & Purves, D. (1998).
stereograms with vertical disparities. Unequal representation of cardinal and oblique contours in ferret
At last, we would like to highlight two ideas. One visual cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
U.S.A., 95, 2621–2623.
refers to the site for processing vertical disparities. The Davidoff, J.B. (1974). An observation concerning the preferred perception
model proposed by Matthews et al. (2003) is based on of the visual horizontal and vertical. Perception, 3, 47–48.
the properties of the receptive fields associated to cells DeAngelis, G.C., Ohzawa, I., & Freeman, R.D. (1991). Depth is
encoded in the visual cortex by a specialized receptive field
in V1. However, as stated by the authors, it implies that structure. Nature, 352, 156–159.
binocular depth perception necessarily takes place in DeValois, R. L., & DeValois, K. K. (1988). Spatial vision. Oxford
V1. Subsequent processing beyond V1, probably in V2 University Press, New York.
DeValois, R.L., Yund, E.W., & Hepler, N. (1982). The orientation and
and V3 feed-forward circuits, could contribute to extract direction selectivity of cells in macaque visual cortex. Vision
vertical disparities and, after such processing, feedback Research, 22, 531–544.
neural pathways would return information to V1 to Emsley, H.H. (1925). Irregular astigmatism of the eye: Effects of
correcting lenses. Transactions of the Optical Society, 27, 28–41.
generate depth perception. The second idea is related to Essock, E.A. (1990). The influence of stimulus length on the oblique
the assumption of the radial orientation bias of the model effect of contrast sensitivity. Vision Research, 30, 1243–1246.
Garding, J., Porrill, J., Mayhew, J.E.W., & Frisby, J.P. (1995).
of Matthews et al. (2003). Physiological differences in Stereopsis, vertical disparity and relief transformations. Vision
the number of cells processing cardinal orientations with Research, 35, 703–722.
respect to the oblique ones have been found in the cortex Heeley, D.W., & Timney, B. (1988). Meridional anisotropies of
orientation discrimination for sine wave gratings. Vision
of cats (Vidyasagar & Henry, 1990) and monkeys (Bauer Research, 28, 337–344.
& Dow, 1989). However, only psychophysical evidence Higgins, G.C., & Stultz, K. (1948). Visual acuity as measured with
is available in the case of humans (the oblique effect) various orientations of a parallel-line test object. Journal of the
Optical Society of America, 38, 756–758.
and our study provides an additional support to this Horn, G., & Hill, R.M. (1969). Modifications of receptive fields of
approach. We think that the oblique effect in stereoacuity cells in the visual cortex occurring spontaneously and associated
can be best explained by the model of Matthews et al. with bodily tilt. Nature, 221, 186–188.
Howard, I.P. (1982). Human visual orientation. Chichester, Sussex:
(2003), and that the absence of oblique effect in the case John Wiley.
of the acuity for 2D stimuli is due to the lack of vertical Howard, I.P., & Kaneko, H. (1994). Relative shear disparity and the
perception of surface inclination. Vision Research, 34, 2505–2517.
disparities in such a condition. Howard, I.P., & Rogers, B.J. (1995). Binocular vision and stereopsis.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Acknowledgements Howard, I.P., & Rogers, B.J. (2002). Seeing in depth: Depth perception
(vol. 2). Toronto: I. Porteus.
Hubel, D.H., & Wiesel, T.N. (1959). Receptive fields of single neurons in
This research was supported by grant SEJ2006-15095/ the cat’s striate cortex. Journal of General Physiology, 39, 651–673.
PSIC from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology. Hubel, D.H., & Wiesel, T.N. (1977). Functional architecture of
macaque monkey visual cortex. Proceedings of the Royal Society
of London B, 198, 1–59.
References Jastrow, J. (1893). On the judgment of angles and positions of lines.
American Journal of Psychology, 5, 214-248.
Andrews, D.P. (1967). Perception of contour orientation in the central Kaneko, H., & Howard, I.P. (1997). Spatial limitation of vertical-size
fovea. I. Short lines. Vision Research, 7, 975–997. disparity processing. Vision Research, 37, 2871–2878.
Anzai, A., Ohzawa, I., & Freeman, R.D. (1999a). Neural mechanisms Keil, M.K., & Cristobal, G. (2000). Separating the chaff from the
for processing binocular information: I. Simple cells. Journal of wheat: Possible origins of the oblique effect. Journal of the
Neurophysiology, 82, 891–908. Optical Society of America A, 17(4), 697–710.
Anzai, A., Ohzawa, I., & Freeman, R.D. (1999b). Neural mechanisms Kennedy, H., Martin, K., Orban, G.A., & Whitteridge, D. (1985).
for processing binocular information: II. Complex cells. Journal Receptive field properties of neurons in visual area 1 and visual
of Neurophysiology, 82, 909–924. area 2 in the baboon. Neuroscience, 14, 405–415.
Appelle, S. (1972). Perception and discrimination as a function Koenderink, J.J., & van Doorn, A.J. (1976). Geometry of binocular vision
of orientation: The “oblique effect” in man and animals. and a model for stereopsis. Biological Cybernetics, 21, 29–35.
Psychological Bulletin, 78, 266–278. Li, B., Peterson, M.R., & Freeman, R.D. (2003). The Oblique Effect:
Arditi, A., Kaufman, L., & Movshon, J.A. (1981). A simple explanation A neural basis in the visual cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology,
of the induced size effect. Vision Research, 21, 755–764. 90, 204–217.
Attneave, F., & Olson, R.K. (1967). Discriminability of stimuli varying Luria, S. M. (1963). The effect of body-position on meridional
in physical and retinal orientation. Journal of Experimental variations in scotopic acuity. American Journal of Psychology,
Psychology, 74, 149–157. 76, 598–606.
Backus, B.T., Banks, M.S., van Ee, R., & Crowell, J.A. (1999). Mach, E. (1861). Über das Sehen von Lagen und Winkeln durch
Horizontal and vertical disparity, eye position, and stereoscopic die Bewegung des Auges. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen
slant perception. Vision Research, 39, 1143–1170. Akademie der Wissenschaften, 43, 215–224.
Bauer, J.A., Owens, D.A., Thomas, J., & Held, R. (1979). Monkeys Maffei, L., & Campbell, F.W. (1970). Neurophysiological localization of
show an oblique effect. Perception, 8, 247–253. the vertical and horizontal visual co-ordinates in man. Science, 167,
Bauer, R., & Dow, B.M. (1989). Complementary global maps for 386–387.
orientation coding in upper and lower layers of the monkey’s Mansfield, R.J.W., & Ronner, S.F. (1978). Orientation anisotropy in
foveal striate cortex. Experimental Brain Research, 76, 503–509. monkey visual cortex. Brain Research, 149, 229–234.
Bouma, H., & Andriessen, J.J. (1968). Perceived orientation of isolated Matthews, N., Meng, X., Xu, P., & Qian, N. (2003). A physiological
Vertical disparities & Oblique effect 175

theory of depth perception from vertical disparity. Vision on single units in cat striate cortex: simultaneous stimulation
Research 43, 85–99. by single moving slit with receptive fields in correspondence.
Mayhew, J.E.W., & Longuet-Higgins, H.C. (1982). A computational Experimental Brain Research, 6, 391–410.
model of binocular depth perception. Nature, 297, 376–379. Rogers, B.J., & Bradshaw, M.F. (1993). Vertical disparities, differential
Nundy, S., Lotto, B., Coppola, D., Shimpi, A.; & Purves, D. (2000). perspectives and binocular stereopsis. Nature, 361, 253–255.
Why are angles misperceived? PNAS, 97, 5592–5597. Vidyasagar, T.R., & Henry, G.H. (1990). Relationship between
Ogle, K.N. (1950). Researches in binocular vision. Philadelphia, PA: preferred orientation and ordinal position in neurons of cat
W. B. Saunders. striate cortex. Visual Neuroscience, 5, 565–569.
Ogle, K.N. (1955). Stereopsis and vertical disparity. AMA Archives of Westheimer, G. (1984). Sensitivity for vertical retinal image
Ophthalmology, 53, 495–504. differences. Nature, 307, 632–634.
Ohzawa, I., DeAngelis, G.C., & Freeman, R.D. (1990). Westheimer, G. (2005). Anisotropies in peripheral Vernier acuity.
Stereoscopic depth discrimination in the visual cortex: Spatial Vision, 18, 159–167.
Neurons ideally suited as disparity detectors. Science, 249, Westheimer, G., & Beard, B.L. (1998). Orientation dependency for
1037–1041. foveal line stimuli: Detection and intensity discrimination,
Ohzawa, I., DeAngelis, G.C., & Freeman, R.D. (1996). Encoding of resolution, orientation discrimination and Vernier acuity. Vision
binocular disparity by simple cells in the cat’s visual cortex. Research, 38, 1097–1103.Westheimer, G., & Pettet, M.W.
Journal of Neurophysiology, 75, 1779–1805. (1992). Detection and processing of vertical disparity by the
Ohzawa, I., DeAngelis, G.C., & Freeman, R.D. (1997). Encoding of human observer. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B,
binocular disparity by complex cells in the cat’s visual cortex. 250, 243–247.
Journal of Neurophysiology, 77, 2879–2909. Zlaskova, M. (1993). Orientation identification at different background
Pettigrew, J.D, Nikara, T., & Bishop, P.O. (1968). Binocular interaction level: Its precision and distortions. Vision Research, 33, 2073–2081.