Stereomotion perception for a monocularly camouflaged stimulus

Kevin R. Brooks*, Barbara J. Gillam

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

13 Citations (Scopus)


Under usual circumstances, motion in depth is associated with conventional stereomotion cues: a change in disparity and differences between object velocities in each monocular image. However, occasionally these cues are unavailable due to the fact that in one eye the object may be occluded by, or camouflaged against appropriately positioned binocular objects. We report two experiments concerned with stereomotion perception under conditions of monocular camouflage. In Experiment 1, the visible half-image of a monocularly camouflaged object translated laterally. In this binocular context, percepts of lateral motion and motion in depth were equally consistent with the stimulus. Subjects perceived an oblique trajectory of 3D motion, compared to the more direct 3D trajectory experienced for binocularly matched stimuli. In Experiment 2, the perceived velocity of stereomotion was assessed. Again, for the stimulus used in Experiment 1, perceived stereomotion speed was lower than that for matched stimuli. However, when additional background objects were present, tightening the ecological constraints, perceived stereomotion velocity was often equivalent to that for matched stimuli. These results demonstrate for the first time that the motion of a monocularly camouflaged object can result in the perception of stereomotion, and that the perceived trajectory and speed are influenced by the ecological constraints of binocular geometry.

Original languageEnglish
Article number1
Pages (from-to)1-14
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of Vision
Issue number13
Publication statusPublished - 11 Oct 2007
Externally publishedYes


  • Binocular vision
  • da Vinci stereopsis
  • Disparity
  • Half-occlusions
  • Motion in depth
  • Stereomotion
  • Unmatched stereopsis


Dive into the research topics of 'Stereomotion perception for a monocularly camouflaged stimulus'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this