arXiv subjects

Paul Linton

Publications and source records attributed to Paul Linton.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

QualiaNet: An Experience-Before-Inference Network

Human 3D vision involves two distinct stages: an Experience Module, where stereo depth is extracted relative to fixation, and an Inference Module, where this experience is interpreted to estimate 3D scene properties. Paradoxically, although stereo vision does not provide us with absolute distance information, it nonetheless affects our inferences about distance. We propose the Inference Module exploits a natural scene statistic: near scenes produce vivid disparity gradients, while far scenes appear comparatively flat. QualiaNet implements this two-stage architecture computationally: disparity maps simulating human stereo experience are passed to a CNN trained to estimate distance. The network can recover distance from disparity gradients alone, validating this approach.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2024

Linton Stereo Illusion: Response on Johnston (1991)

In (Linton, 2024) I present a new illusion (the 'Linton Stereo Illusion') that challenges our understanding of stereo vision. A vision scientist has shared their own analysis of the 'Linton Stereo Illusion' (titled: 'There is no challenge to our understanding of stereo vision: Response to Linton and Kriegeskorte (ECVP 2024 and ArXiv:2408.00770)') claiming that the 'Linton Stereo Illusion' is fully explained by Johnston (1991). I regard Johnston (1991) as one of the most important stereo vision papers in our young (< 200-year-old) field, and so this challenge requires a response. In this paper I explain why Johnston (1991) cannot explain the 'Linton Stereo Illusion'. Indeed, Johnston (1991) makes predictions that are the exact opposite of those observed in the 'Linton Stereo Illusion'. I also highlight a key concern with Johnston (1991)'s account that has so far been overlooked. Johnston (1991)'s account predicts that vergence eye movements will cause massive stereo distortions, leading to a world of unstable stereo perception. But this simply does not reflect our visual experience.

q-bio.NC↗

arXiv2024

Linton Stereo Illusion

We present a new illusion that challenges our understanding of stereo vision. The illusion consists of a larger circle at 50cm, and smaller circle in front of it at 40cm, with constant angular sizes throughout. We move the larger circle forward by 10cm (to 40cm) and then back again (to 50cm). The question is, what distance should we move the smaller circle forward and back to maintain a constant perceived separation in depth between the circles? Constant physical distance (10cm) or constant retinal disparity (6.7cm)? Observers choose constant disparity. We therefore argue the 'Linton Stereo Illusion' appears to suggest that perceived stereo depth reflects retinal disparities rather than 3D geometry.

q-bio.NC↗

arXiv2019

Would Gaze-Contingent Rendering Improve Depth Perception in Virtual and Augmented Reality?

Near distances are overestimated in virtual reality, and far distances are underestimated, but an explanation for these distortions remains elusive. One potential concern is that whilst the eye rotates to look at the virtual scene, the virtual cameras remain static. Could using eye-tracking to change the perspective of the virtual cameras as the eye rotates improve depth perception in virtual reality? This paper identifies 14 distinct perspective distortions that could in theory occur from keeping the virtual cameras fixed whilst the eye rotates in the context of near-eye displays. However, the impact of eye movements on the displayed image depends on the optical, rather than physical, distance of the display. Since the optical distance of most head-mounted displays is over 1m, most of these distortions will have only a negligible effect. The exception are 'gaze-contingent disparities', which will leave near virtual objects looking displaced from physical objects that are meant to be at the same distance in augmented reality.

cs.HC↗