XVIII. Contributions to the physiology of vision. —Part the first. On some remarkable, and hitherto unobserved, phenomena of binocular vision

@article{WheatstoneXVIIICT,
  title={XVIII. Contributions to the physiology of vision. —Part the first. On some remarkable, and hitherto unobserved, phenomena of binocular vision},
  author={Charles Sir Wheatstone},
  journal={Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London},
  pages={371 - 394}
}
  • C. Wheatstone
  • Published 22 November 1962
  • Art
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London
When an object is viewed at so great a distance that the optic axes of both eyes are sensibly parallel when directed towards it, the perspective projections of it, seen by each eye separately, are similar, and the appearance to the two eyes is precisely the same as when the object is seen by one eye only. There is, in such case, no difference between the visual appearance of an object in relief and its perspective projection on a plane surface; and hence pictorial representations of distant… 

Figures from this paper

About the stereoscopic phenomena and Wheatstone’s attack on the theory of the identical points of the retinas

In an essay entitled “Contributions to the Physiology of Vision” in which he announces his invention of the stereoscope, Charles Wheatstone denies the theory of the identical points of the retinas to

Vision with two eyes, the doctrine of the identical retina points

TLDR
The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the inadequacy and inaccuracy of the hypothesis of the identity of the retinas, as well as its deleterious effects on today’s ophthalmology.

Suppression Theory of Binocular Vision *

  • H. Asher
  • Medicine
    The British journal of ophthalmology
  • 1953
TLDR
It is proposed here to reconsider du Tour's opinion in relation to the problem of depth perception, and the diagrams shown in this paper should be combined as in a stereoscope.

The stereoscopic phenomena in relation to the doctrine of identical retinal points

TLDR
The experiments of section III show that the anatomical connections allow an incomparably finer separation of disparate points than ever occurred in the experiments that were made to determine the threshold disparities, from which it follows that the differences between the thresholds, which were found in tests and in relation to different directions in the visual field, cannot be derived from anatomical connections.

The stereoscopic phenomena in relation to the doctrine of identical retinal points

TLDR
In order to be able to judge the variation within which the differences between the images fusing into unity can fluctuate, it is necessary to determine the maximum difference in the contour at which the fusion can still take place under given circumstances.

A Local Sign for Depth

TLDR
Hering solved the problem by giving each point on the two retinae a specific depth-value, but this simple and elegant solution has never gained wide acceptance, largely because Hering never specified any mechanism which could add depth-values to inputs.

The lost direction in binocular vision: the neglected signs posted by Wells, Towne, and LeConte.

TLDR
The experiments on binocular visual direction conducted by Wells before Wheatstone, and by Towne and LeConte after him, are examined and texts in English devoted to analyses of direction rather than depth have been neglected.

Binocular Depth Perception in Man — A Cooperative Model of Stereopsis

TLDR
This opinion prevailed (and became even more exaggerated by the Gestaltist school) until the invention of random-dot stereograms in 1959, when it was commonly believed that understanding binocular vision must await the understanding of monocular vision.

Binocular Vision: Defining the Historical Directions

TLDR
It is discussed how among eighteenth-and nineteenth-century British researchers, particularly Porterfield, Brewster, and Wheatstone, the erroneous idea continued and also why observations made by Wells were neither understood nor appreciated.
...