6 ms·

> When looking at glass in real life, your left eye and your right eye see slightly different refraction patterns since they're looking at the surface from slig

> When looking at glass in real life, your left eye and your right eye see slightly different refraction patterns since they're looking at the surface from slightly different angles But if you close one eye, you can still make out the depth. Brain is still able to tell what is glass, what is on top of glass or below it.

BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
Only across time via parallax motion and depth refocusing, neither of which are available on the screen. And both of those signals are extremely secondary to binocular sight. There's a reason that people with strabismus lose depth perception. Their point stands. (Though Apple could technically do a parallax effect by face tracking if they wanted)
- freehorse 1y ago
  > There's a reason that people with strabismus lose depth perception. Still we don't stumble onto things nor do we fail recognise what is on a glass vs inside. Even if we do not have binocular depth perception, we actually perceive depth irl just fine. And people with binocular vision also fall for depth illusions just fine, too. The brain does a lot of predictive processing. It would be too inefficient to be constantly relying on such details for basic tasks.
  - rkomorn 1y ago
    > Even if we do not have binocular depth perception, we actually perceive depth irl just fine. I don't think it's everyone of us because I struggle somewhat with pouring things into small openings (eg refilling a small bottle from a bigger one) and most ball games (tennis, table tennis) are difficult. I don't think it makes depth perception a problem, but I think it's unarguable mine isn't as good as the people I know with binocular vision.
    - freehorse 1y ago
      I don't know about your experience or situation, but a confound is that usually people with strabismus have bad eyesight in other aspects in general too. Usually, developing strabismus is the result of other issues with eyesight. The obvious confound is basically having only one good eye to use at a time, and thus also less neural pathways developed and utilised than those who use 2 eyes. This could make visual perception tasks like tracking a fast moving ball harder regardless of the actual role of depth perception in it. There could be tasks where reliance on perceptual cues for depth perception is less effective, but I wouldn't think a moving ball is that kind of task.
      - rkomorn 1y ago
        You might well be right. My eyes are definitely not great on top of the strabismus and lack of binocular vision. One of the main issues with tracking things is focus switching from one eye to another based on where it's moving. That said I do think the issues with pouring things is more of a depth perception issue. I basically have to switch focus from one eye to another to be satisfied I'm aligned where I want to be.
        freehorse 1y ago
        Pouring things sounds more like sth that could be a depth perception issue, true, though I never actually noticed that for myself. I believe I find it harder than usual passing a thread through a needle though because of depth perception issues.
  - BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
    It's good that you don't have trouble getting through life, but "just fine" is not a measurement. Lacking binocular convergence inarguably diminishes perception even if not 100% gone completely.
    - freehorse 1y ago
      Measurements actually support that [0]. I am pretty sure you could devise some scenarios where individuals with strabismus do not perform as well, but for most irl scenarios there is no difference. Compensatory mechanisms do the job just fine, and even those with normal eyesight do not rely solely on binocular convergence either. Our brains don't usually rely on a single signal to make sense of the world, and predictive processing plays a huge role for constructing the image of the world around us, which is also why depth illusions work. Even for those with normal binocular convergence, its contribution for making sense of depth is prob smaller compared to other perceptual cues. [0] Zlatkute et al 2020, Unimpaired perception of relative depth from perspective cues in strabismus. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7: 200955. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.200955 https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.200955
      - hug 1y ago
        That article does not seem to support your point. They're not measuring depth perception, they're measuring whether people with strabismus have managed to learn perspective cues in 2D images, and, in fact, the article explicitly states agreement with the point you're arguing against. > Strabismus disrupts sensory fusion, the cortical process of combining the images from the two eyes into a single binocular image [3–6]. The main perceptual consequences of lack of fused binocular images is diplopia (double vision) and a lack of binocular depth perception. Just because those with strabismus can use monocular cues to inform them of relative depth does not mean that they have the same level of depth perception as those with normal binocular convergence. The best example of this is sports, but as another example I'm legally disallowed from driving an articulated vehicle -- for what I personally think is a pretty good reason. Anecdotally, compared to friends and family my depth perception is dogshit.
        1y ago
- agos 1y ago
  they do parallax effect for some things, but not for all liquid glass widget (it would be interesting but probably too much)

BugsJustFindMe 1y ago

Only across time via parallax motion and depth refocusing, neither of which are available on the screen. And both of those signals are extremely secondary to binocular sight. There's a reason that people with strabismus lose depth perception. Their point stands. (Though Apple could technically do a parallax effect by face tracking if they wanted)

freehorse 1y ago
> There's a reason that people with strabismus lose depth perception. Still we don't stumble onto things nor do we fail recognise what is on a glass vs inside. Even if we do not have binocular depth perception, we actually perceive depth irl just fine. And people with binocular vision also fall for depth illusions just fine, too. The brain does a lot of predictive processing. It would be too inefficient to be constantly relying on such details for basic tasks.
- rkomorn 1y ago
  > Even if we do not have binocular depth perception, we actually perceive depth irl just fine. I don't think it's everyone of us because I struggle somewhat with pouring things into small openings (eg refilling a small bottle from a bigger one) and most ball games (tennis, table tennis) are difficult. I don't think it makes depth perception a problem, but I think it's unarguable mine isn't as good as the people I know with binocular vision.
  - freehorse 1y ago
    I don't know about your experience or situation, but a confound is that usually people with strabismus have bad eyesight in other aspects in general too. Usually, developing strabismus is the result of other issues with eyesight. The obvious confound is basically having only one good eye to use at a time, and thus also less neural pathways developed and utilised than those who use 2 eyes. This could make visual perception tasks like tracking a fast moving ball harder regardless of the actual role of depth perception in it. There could be tasks where reliance on perceptual cues for depth perception is less effective, but I wouldn't think a moving ball is that kind of task.
    - rkomorn 1y ago
      You might well be right. My eyes are definitely not great on top of the strabismus and lack of binocular vision. One of the main issues with tracking things is focus switching from one eye to another based on where it's moving. That said I do think the issues with pouring things is more of a depth perception issue. I basically have to switch focus from one eye to another to be satisfied I'm aligned where I want to be.
      - freehorse 1y ago
        Pouring things sounds more like sth that could be a depth perception issue, true, though I never actually noticed that for myself. I believe I find it harder than usual passing a thread through a needle though because of depth perception issues.
- BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
  It's good that you don't have trouble getting through life, but "just fine" is not a measurement. Lacking binocular convergence inarguably diminishes perception even if not 100% gone completely.
  - freehorse 1y ago
    Measurements actually support that [0]. I am pretty sure you could devise some scenarios where individuals with strabismus do not perform as well, but for most irl scenarios there is no difference. Compensatory mechanisms do the job just fine, and even those with normal eyesight do not rely solely on binocular convergence either. Our brains don't usually rely on a single signal to make sense of the world, and predictive processing plays a huge role for constructing the image of the world around us, which is also why depth illusions work. Even for those with normal binocular convergence, its contribution for making sense of depth is prob smaller compared to other perceptual cues. [0] Zlatkute et al 2020, Unimpaired perception of relative depth from perspective cues in strabismus. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7: 200955. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.200955 https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.200955
    - hug 1y ago
      That article does not seem to support your point. They're not measuring depth perception, they're measuring whether people with strabismus have managed to learn perspective cues in 2D images, and, in fact, the article explicitly states agreement with the point you're arguing against. > Strabismus disrupts sensory fusion, the cortical process of combining the images from the two eyes into a single binocular image [3–6]. The main perceptual consequences of lack of fused binocular images is diplopia (double vision) and a lack of binocular depth perception. Just because those with strabismus can use monocular cues to inform them of relative depth does not mean that they have the same level of depth perception as those with normal binocular convergence. The best example of this is sports, but as another example I'm legally disallowed from driving an articulated vehicle -- for what I personally think is a pretty good reason. Anecdotally, compared to friends and family my depth perception is dogshit.
      - 1y ago
agos 1y ago
they do parallax effect for some things, but not for all liquid glass widget (it would be interesting but probably too much)