Discussion:
The data collected in this experiment indicate that binocular vision is much more successful at aiding subjects in determining correct depth perception than monocular vision. The expected outcome of this experiment, as highlighted in the hypothesis, was validated with the obvious correlation seen in the data as well as a statistical-significance-indicating p-value. We had several weaknesses in this experiment, including a lack of test subjects, and, therefore, a lack of raw data for analysis. The testing apparatus had a “stick” to it whereby as the test subject was manipulating the strings attached to the vertical posts, occasionally s/he would have to pull very hard to move the sticks past a certain point. Also, the researchers performing this study ideally should not have been its key test subjects.
A future study that could be performed, related to this one, would be to test depth perception in human beings related to moving objects. Cars, landscape, or other indicators could be viewed from a moving vehicle in which subjects can obstruct one eye and attempt to determine relative distance from the object.
Showing posts with label depth perception obstruction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label depth perception obstruction. Show all posts
Friday, April 15, 2011
Depth Perception Obstruction, Results
Results:
The results of our experiment were interesting in that different test subjects showed significantly different abilities in distinguishing proper depth perception, despite one eye being obstructed in some cases. The graph below summarizes the findings of this study quite accurately in very clearly stating that test subjects were able to much more accurately perform the depth perception test while using two eyes (binocular vision) than while using just one eye (monocular vision). For the tests where subjects were allowed to use both eyes to determine depth perception, they were able to determine where the vertical bars met to within 0.83 cm on average. On the other hand, when one eye was obstructed, the average distance away from actual that the test subjects were able to determine where the vertical bars met grew to over 1.64 cm on average. This striking fact indicates that binocular vision was much more successful at aiding subjects in determining correct depth perception than was monocular vision.
In performing a statistical analysis of the data, we opted to perform a two-tailed t-test. This test was chosen because it was the most appropriate given the hypothesis that expected binocular vision to be more effective than monocular vision in depth perception testing. The p-value resulting from this test was 0.013. Because our alpha value for this experiment was 0.05, this p-value indicates statistical significance in our findings. In the context of our experiment, this indicates that an unobstructed while determining depth perception, for humans, is more accurate than an obstructed one.
The results of our experiment were interesting in that different test subjects showed significantly different abilities in distinguishing proper depth perception, despite one eye being obstructed in some cases. The graph below summarizes the findings of this study quite accurately in very clearly stating that test subjects were able to much more accurately perform the depth perception test while using two eyes (binocular vision) than while using just one eye (monocular vision). For the tests where subjects were allowed to use both eyes to determine depth perception, they were able to determine where the vertical bars met to within 0.83 cm on average. On the other hand, when one eye was obstructed, the average distance away from actual that the test subjects were able to determine where the vertical bars met grew to over 1.64 cm on average. This striking fact indicates that binocular vision was much more successful at aiding subjects in determining correct depth perception than was monocular vision.
In performing a statistical analysis of the data, we opted to perform a two-tailed t-test. This test was chosen because it was the most appropriate given the hypothesis that expected binocular vision to be more effective than monocular vision in depth perception testing. The p-value resulting from this test was 0.013. Because our alpha value for this experiment was 0.05, this p-value indicates statistical significance in our findings. In the context of our experiment, this indicates that an unobstructed while determining depth perception, for humans, is more accurate than an obstructed one.
Depth Perception Obstruction, Method
Method:
We had test subjects kneel on the floor, approximately six feet away from our testing apparatus. This apparatus was a box with two vertical sticks that moved laterally back and forth from the test subject when strings attached to them were manipulated. The test subjects each wore a pair of goggles for the first half of testing, with neither eye being obstructed. Each patient was asked to manipulate the strings to move the laterally moving sticks to a position where they seemed to be most equidistant from the patient his/herself. At this point, a measurement was recorded, according to a ruler placed on top of the apparatus, which told how far apart the sticks in question actually were. Once the measurement was taken, the lateral sticks were then replaced far apart, to a reset position from which the next trial would begin.
We repeated this trial five times with each participant. Then, we had each participant put on a pair of goggles of the same make but that had one eye obscured. The test subjects would alternate from one subject to the next which eye was obstructed, so that an equal number of left and right subject eyes were obstructed through the course of the experiment. Once more, we had each test subject complete five trials in this fashion, recording each time the number of centimeters away from accurate their depth perception actually led them.
The dependant variable in this experiment was the ability of each test subject to perceive depth. The independent variable was replacing an unobstructed pair of goggles with a pair of one-eye-obstructed goggles. Because there were only four test subjects, there were no groups, however two subjects obstructed their left eye for the experiment, while the other two obstructed their right eye, in order to create a balance within the testing environment. Each subject was tested in the same manner as the others. Data were collected in cm on a spreadsheet, measuring the distance that the test sticks were apart from each other, after the test subject had determined they believed they were equidistant from his/herself.
Data were analyzed by finding the average between all 4 test subjects’ results and creating a graph from this data, and by performing a statistical analysis that revealed one- and two-tailed p-value test results.
We had test subjects kneel on the floor, approximately six feet away from our testing apparatus. This apparatus was a box with two vertical sticks that moved laterally back and forth from the test subject when strings attached to them were manipulated. The test subjects each wore a pair of goggles for the first half of testing, with neither eye being obstructed. Each patient was asked to manipulate the strings to move the laterally moving sticks to a position where they seemed to be most equidistant from the patient his/herself. At this point, a measurement was recorded, according to a ruler placed on top of the apparatus, which told how far apart the sticks in question actually were. Once the measurement was taken, the lateral sticks were then replaced far apart, to a reset position from which the next trial would begin.
We repeated this trial five times with each participant. Then, we had each participant put on a pair of goggles of the same make but that had one eye obscured. The test subjects would alternate from one subject to the next which eye was obstructed, so that an equal number of left and right subject eyes were obstructed through the course of the experiment. Once more, we had each test subject complete five trials in this fashion, recording each time the number of centimeters away from accurate their depth perception actually led them.
The dependant variable in this experiment was the ability of each test subject to perceive depth. The independent variable was replacing an unobstructed pair of goggles with a pair of one-eye-obstructed goggles. Because there were only four test subjects, there were no groups, however two subjects obstructed their left eye for the experiment, while the other two obstructed their right eye, in order to create a balance within the testing environment. Each subject was tested in the same manner as the others. Data were collected in cm on a spreadsheet, measuring the distance that the test sticks were apart from each other, after the test subject had determined they believed they were equidistant from his/herself.
Data were analyzed by finding the average between all 4 test subjects’ results and creating a graph from this data, and by performing a statistical analysis that revealed one- and two-tailed p-value test results.
Depth Perception Obstruction, Introduction
Depth Perception: Ability in Unobstructed vs. Obstructed Situations
Introduction:
The ability to gauge the distance of an object accurately is a characteristic most common of higher-order animals. Combining several types of depth cues, this ability of sight is known as depth perception. Stereopsis is a feature of binocular vision that works by allowing a person or animal to see the same object from two slightly different angles and subsequently be able to determine (triangulate) its distance away. The monocular concept of relative size allows humans to determine the closeness of objects based on their size relative to a predetermined expectation of the object’s size rooted in past experiences of the individual. It is my understanding from these explanations that this form of monocular depth perception is less accurate than the above mentioned binocular [stereopsis] method of determining depth perception. Therefore, if test subjects are subjected to depth perception tests using one eye versus two, I expect that they will not be as able to accurately determine the correct point at which both vertical beams are equidistant from their person.
Introduction:
The ability to gauge the distance of an object accurately is a characteristic most common of higher-order animals. Combining several types of depth cues, this ability of sight is known as depth perception. Stereopsis is a feature of binocular vision that works by allowing a person or animal to see the same object from two slightly different angles and subsequently be able to determine (triangulate) its distance away. The monocular concept of relative size allows humans to determine the closeness of objects based on their size relative to a predetermined expectation of the object’s size rooted in past experiences of the individual. It is my understanding from these explanations that this form of monocular depth perception is less accurate than the above mentioned binocular [stereopsis] method of determining depth perception. Therefore, if test subjects are subjected to depth perception tests using one eye versus two, I expect that they will not be as able to accurately determine the correct point at which both vertical beams are equidistant from their person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)