Performance under Dichoptic versus Binocular Viewing Conditions: Effects of Attention and Task Requirements

Abstract

Three experiments investigated subjects' ability to allocate attention and cope with task requirements under dichoptic versus binocular viewing conditions. Experiments 1 and 2 employed a target detection task in compound and noncompound stimuli, and Experiment 3 employed a relative-proximity judgment task. The tasks were performed in a focused attention condition in which subjects had to attend to the stimulus presented to one eye or field (under dichoptic and binocular viewing conditions, respectively) while ignoring the stimulus presented to the other eye or field, and in a divided attention condition in which subjects had to attend to the stimuli presented to both eyes or fields. Subjects' performance was affected by the interaction of attention conditions with task requirements, but it was generally the same under dichoptic and binocular viewing conditions. The more dependent the task was on finer discrimination, the more performance was impaired by divided attention. These results suggest that at least with discrete tasks and relatively short exposure durations, performance when each eye is presented with a separate stimulus is the same as when the entire field of stimulation is viewed by both eyes.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson, J. D. , Bechtoldt, H. P. , and Dunlap, G. L. (1978). Binocular integration in line rivalry. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 11, 399–402.

Arditi, A. (1986). Binocular vision. In K. R. Boff , L. Kaufman , and J. P. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance (Vol. 1, pp. 23-1–23-36). New York: Wiley.

Deutch, J. A. , and Deutch, D. (1963). Attention: Some theoretical considerations. Psychological Review, 87, 272–300.

Egly, R. , and Homa, D. (1984). Sensitization of the visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 778–793.

Eriksen, C. W. , and St. James, J. D. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model. Perception and Psychophysics, 40, 225–240.

Eriksen, C. W. , and Yeh, Y. (1985). Allocation of attention in the visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 583–597.

Gopher, D. , Grunwald, A. , Straucher, Z. , and Kimchi, R. (1990). Tracking and letter classification under dichoptic and binocular conditions. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting (pp. 1557–1561). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.

Hoffman, J. E. (1980). Interaction between global and local levels of a form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6, 222–234.

Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

10.

Kimchi, R. (1988). Selective attention to global and local levels in the comparison of hierarchical patterns. Perception and Psychophysics, 43, 189–198.

11.

Kimchi, R. , and Palmer, S. E. (1985). Integrality and separability of global and local levels of hierarchical patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 673–688.

12.

Kimchi, R. , Rubin, Y. , Gopher, D. , and Raij, D. (1989). Attention in dichoptic and binocular vision. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting (pp. 1435–1439). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.

13.

Kinchla, H. A. , Solis-Macias, V. , and Hoffman, J. (1983). Attending to different levels of structure in a visual image. Perception and Psychophysics, 33, 1–10.

14.

LaBerge, D. (1983). Spatial extent of attention to letters and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 371–379.

15.

Lamb, M. R. , and Robertson, L. C. (1988). The processing of hierarchical stimuli: Effects of retinal locus, Iocational uncertainty, and stimulus identity. Perception and Psychophysics, 44, 172–181.

16.

Long, G. M. (1979). The dichoptic viewing paradigm: Do the eyes have it? Psychological Bulletin. 86, 2, 391–403.

17.

Miller, J. (1981). Global precedence in attention and decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance., 7, 1161–1174.

18.

Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353–383.

19.

Navon, D. (1981). The forest revisited: More on global precedence. Psychological Research, 43, 1–32.

20.

Neisser, U. , and Becklen, R. (1975). Selective looking: Attending to visually specified events. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 480–494.

21.

Pomerantz, J. R. (1983). Global and local precedence: Se Selective attention in form and motion perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112, 511–535.

22.

Posner, M. I. , Snyder, C. R. R. , and Davidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 160–174.

23.

Schwank, J. C. H. (1976). Dichoptic versus binocular viewing and the processing of multiple visual signals. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Oregon, Eugene.

24.

Walker, P. (1978). Binocular rivalry: Central or peripheral processes?. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 376–389.

25.

Wolfe, J. M. (1982). When rivalry fails: The false fusion phenomenon and the temporal course of suppression. Perception, 11, A17.

26.

Wolfe, J. M. (1986). Stereopsis and binocular rivalry. Psychological Review, 93, 269–282.