Fig 1.
(a) Experimental setup. Observers viewed MID stimuli in a virtual reality headset. The stimuli simulated dots moving toward/away from the observer through a cylindrical volume. Observers reported the perceived motion direction. (b) Motion-in-depth stimuli and temporal sequence. Binocular cues stimuli contained binocularly opposite horizontal motion cues. Monocular cues stimuli contained optic flow patterns shown to one eye only. Combined cues stimuli contained both cues at the same time. Full VR stimuli contained binocular and monocular cues, as well as motion parallax. Stimuli were presented for 250 ms. Auditory and visual feedback were provided to observers after they responded. The next trial started 750 ms after feedback. The number of dots, their sizes, and optic flow patterns shown here are intended to convey the MID cues, rather than to portray the exact stimuli. Movies illustrating the actual stimuli are provided in the Supporting Information.
Fig 2.
(a) Representative observers. Sensitivity to the visual cues that signal MID varied across individuals. Positive (negative) coherences indicate that signal dots moved toward (away from) the observer. Curves are cumulative Gaussian fits to the psychometric data. To visualize overlapping figure elements, we dashed some lines and enlarged some data points. (Left) Observer with relatively high sensitivity in all four conditions. (Center) Observer with poorer sensitivity in all four conditions. While sensitivity for these two observers differed, sensitivity in the combined cues condition was greater than when either cue was presented in isolation. This pattern indicates cue integration and was shared by the majority of observers. However, sensitivity in the full VR condition, which added motion parallax, was often less than combined cues sensitivity. (Right) Example observer sensitive to monocular cues, combined cues, and full VR conditions, but not binocular cues alone. (b) Comparison of monocular, binocular, combined, and full VR sensitivities across our sample (n = 80). The width of the shaded areas in the violin plots represents the proportion of the data at that level of sensitivity. The solid line in each shaded area marks the mean sensitivity and the dashed line marks the median sensitivity. (c) Relationship between stereoacuity and sensitivity to MID cues. Static stereoacuity did not predict sensitivity to MID based on monocular (blue), binocular (red), combined (purple), or full VR (green) cues. The horizontal black dashed line corresponds to the upper sensitivity bound associated with chance performance. Stereoacuity is plotted on a logarithmic scale, and datapoints are jittered at each stereoacuity level for visualization.
Fig 3.
Relationship between sensitivity and experimental block number.
(a) Sensitivity to MID based on monocular cues (blue) and binocular cues (red) significantly improved with experimental block. Numerically similar trends were observed in the combined cues (purple) and full VR (green) conditions, but the improvements were not significant. Data points correspond to between-subject mean sensitivities. Error bars correspond to ±1 standard error of the mean (SEM). Lines are regression fits. The shaded area marks the range of sensitivities between the two-cue (lower-bound) and three-cue (upper-bound) model predictions (see Results for details). (b) Proportion of observers who performed above chance in each condition as a function of block.