- •CONTENTS
- •PREFACE
- •Abstract
- •1. Introduction
- •2.1. Differential Geometry of Space Curves
- •2.2. Inverse Problem Formulation
- •2.3. Reconstruction of Unique Space Curves
- •3. Rigid Motion Estimation by Tracking the Space Curves
- •4. Motion Estimation Using Double Stereo Rigs
- •4.1. Single Stereo Rig
- •4.2. Double Stereo Rigs
- •5.1. Space-Time or Virtual Camera Generation
- •5.2. Visual Hull Reconstruction from Silhouettes of Multiple Views
- •5.2.1. Volume Based Visual Hull
- •5.2.1.1. Intersection Test in Octree Cubes
- •5.2.1.2. Synthetic Model Results
- •5.2.2. Edge Base Visual Hull
- •5.2.2.1. Synthetic Model Results
- •Implementation and Exprimental Results
- •Conclusions
- •Acknowledgment
- •References
- •Abstract
- •Introduction: Ocular Dominance
- •Demography of Ocular Dominance
- •A Taxonomy of Ocular Dominance
- •Is Ocular Dominance Test Specific?
- •I. Tests of Rivalry
- •II. Tests of Asymmetry
- •III. Sighting Tests
- •Some Misconceptions
- •Resolving the Paradox of Ocular Dominance
- •Some Clinical Implications of Ocular Dominance
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Abstract
- •1. Introduction
- •2. Basic Teory
- •3. Bezier Networks for Surface Contouring
- •4. Parameter of the Vision System
- •5. Experimental Results
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Abstract
- •Introduction
- •Terminology (Definitions)
- •Clinical Assessment
- •Examination Techniques: Motility
- •Ocular Motility Recordings
- •Semiautomatic Analysis of Eye Movement Recordings
- •Slow Eye Movements in Congenital Nystagmus
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •EVOLUTION OF COMPUTER VISION SYSTEMS
- •Abstract
- •Introduction
- •Present-Day Level of CVS Development
- •Full-Scale Universal CVS
- •Integration of CVS and AI Control System
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •1. Advantages of Binocular Vision
- •2. Foundations of Binocular Vision
- •3. Stereopsis as the Highest Level of Binocular Vision
- •4. Binocular Viewing Conditions on Pupil Near Responses
- •5. Development of Binocular Vision
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Abstract
- •Introduction
- •Methods
- •Results
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Abstract
- •1. Preferential Processing of Emotional Stimuli
- •1.1. Two Pathways for the Processing of Emotional Stimuli
- •1.2. Intensive Processing of Negative Valence or of Arousal?
- •2. "Blind" in One Eye: Binocular Rivalry
- •2.1. What Helmholtz Knew Already
- •2.3. Possible Influences from Non-visual Neuronal Circuits
- •3.1. Significance and Predominance
- •3.2. Emotional Discrepancy and Binocular Rivalry
- •4. Binocular Rivalry Experiments at Our Lab
- •4.1. Predominance of Emotional Scenes
- •4.1.1. Possible Confounds
- •4.2. Dominance of Emotional Facial Expressions
- •4.3. Inter-Individual Differences: Phobic Stimuli
- •4.4. Controlling for Physical Properties of Stimuli
- •4.5. Validation of Self-report
- •4.6. Summary
- •References
- •Abstract
- •1. Introduction
- •2. Algorithm Overview
- •3. Road Surface Estimation
- •3.1. 3D Data Point Projection and Cell Selection
- •3.2. Road Plane Fitting
- •3.2.1. Dominant 2D Straight Line Parametrisation
- •3.2.2. Road Plane Parametrisation
- •4. Road Scanning
- •5. Candidate Filtering
- •6. Experimental Results
- •7. Conclusions
- •Acknowledgements
- •References
- •DEVELOPMENT OF SACCADE CONTROL
- •Abstract
- •1. Introduction
- •2. Fixation and Fixation Stability
- •2.1. Monocular Instability
- •2.2. Binocular Instability
- •2.3. Eye Dominance in Binocular Instability
- •3. Development of Saccade Control
- •3.1. The Optomotor Cycle and the Components of Saccade Control
- •3.4. Antisaccades: Voluntary Saccade Control
- •3.5. The Age Curves of Saccade Control
- •3.6. Left – Right Asymmetries
- •3.7. Correlations and Independence
- •References
- •OCULAR DOMINANCE
- •INDEX
Ocular Dominance within Binocular Vision |
67 |
|
|
only 3% demonstrated no consistent preference. Chronological age and country of origin appeared to be negligible influences in this compilation.
Subsequent to this summary, the same authors (Porac & Coren, 1981) published the results of a substantial questionnaire-based population study of eye (also ear and limb) laterality. The survey was completed by 5147 individuals (representing an approximately 25% response rate to the mailing) across North America. Results indicated that 71.1% of respondents were right sighting preferent. The balance (28.9%) of respondents were left sighting preferent; this apparently included a tiny proportion of persons who were unable to indicate a preference.
Replicating the outcome of a previous study (Porac et al., 1980), males (at 72.9%) were revealed in this survey as being statistically significantly more right eyed than females (69.1%): this gender imbalance has recently been reported again in an independent study (Eser et al., 2008). Male subjects have also been shown (Porac & Coren, 1975) to be statistically significantly more consistent than females (81% versus 63%, respectively) in their sighting preferences (regardless of whether laterality was dextral or sinistral).
Adults in the North American postal survey of Porac & Coren (1981) were possibly more dextral than children, but the trend with advancing chronological age was weak and not statistically significant. Suggestions that refractive error and OD might be associated have not been substantiated in a recent large population study of adult subjects (Eser et al., 2008). Furthermore, over a twoyear longitudinal study (Yang et al., 2008) the development of childhood myopia has been shown to be free of the influence of OD.
A Taxonomy of Ocular Dominance
Over the four centuries subsequent to Porta’s (1593) description of sighting preference the bibliography of the topic covering theoretical, practical and conjectural issues has expanded to perhaps 600 or more articles (Coren & Porac, 1975; updated by Mapp et al., 2003). Unfortunately this burgeoning literature has not produced a consistent or unifying theory of OD. As others have voiced previously (Flax, 1966; Warren & Clark, 1938) we can still legitimately ask: “What is the purpose of ocular dominance?” Controversially, does it have a purpose or – given that the eye that is considered dominant in a given person might vary with the task and circumstances (see below) – might the phenomenon be considered an artefact resulting from a particular test format or approach?