> You say that peripheral vision is more impairing than lack of binocular disparity. But peripheral vision has zero impact on depth perception Ah, but he didn'

> You say that peripheral vision is more impairing than lack of binocular disparity. But peripheral vision has zero impact on depth perception Ah, but he didn't say "more impairing with respect to depth perception." He was talking about impairment in general. As in, the loss of peripheral vision that comes with having only one eye is probably a bigger deal than the loss of binocular depth perception that comes with having only one eye, because binocular depth perception doesn't confer that much of a perceptual advantage over the ability to process motion parallax. That last part is certainly debatable, and really depends on the context. Your tennis example brings to mind the fact that binocular depth perception is really helpful for hunters (of many species), presumably because it gives them more precise depth information with less orthogonal movement. Wider peripheral vision is probably better for avoiding predators and other dangers. (I was just reading about animals with binocular 360 degree vision, after wondering why 360 degree vision wasn't more prevalent.) For a modern human, which sort of visual impairment is more impairing likely depends a lot on lifestyle and environment.