Linton Stereo Illusion: Response on Johnston (1991)

TL;DR

This paper introduces the Linton Stereo Illusion, demonstrating it cannot be explained by Johnston (1991), and challenges existing stereo vision theories by highlighting discrepancies between predictions and visual experience.

Contribution

The paper provides a critical response to claims that Johnston (1991) explains the Linton Stereo Illusion, showing it makes opposite predictions and highlighting overlooked issues.

Findings

Johnston (1991) cannot explain the Linton Stereo Illusion.

Johnston (1991) predicts unstable stereo perception contradicting experience.

The Linton Stereo Illusion challenges existing stereo vision explanations.

Abstract

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.