Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Transparency and the uniqueness constraint in human and computer stereo vision

Abstract

THE sensation of depth that is obtained with human binocular vision results from the differences in the projection of the world onto the two retinae. The process entails solving the problem of stereo correspondence, which involves choosing the correct matches between left and right image features. Many computational models of stereo vision assume a uniqueness constraint on stereo matching—that is, each feature identified in one image should eventually be matched with only one feature in the other image1,2. This constraint would seem to be justified, as allowing non-unique matches would be tantamount to supposing that the scene entities to which matches relate are in two places at once1. The value of the uniqueness constraint for eliminating false matches has been demonstrated in a variety of stereo algorithms. Yet on the basis of psychophysical results Weinshall3 concluded that it was not used by humans in dealing with certain types of ambiguous random-dot stereograms. We have now tested how Weinshall's stereograms are dealt with by PMF4, a stereo algorithm which uses a unique-matches selection procedure in conjunction with a purely local similar-disparity support scheme. We found that PMF produces results that are closely analogous to the psychophysical results. This suggests that Weishall's experiments should not be interpreted as evidence that the human stereo mechanism establishes non-unique matches.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Marr, D. & Poggio, T. Science 194, 283–287 (1976).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Mayhew, J. E. W. & Frisby, J. P. Artificial Intelligence 17, 349–386 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Weinshall, D. Nature 341, 737–739 (1989).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Pollard, S. B., Mayhew, J. E. W. & Frisby, J. P. Perception 14, 449–470 (1985).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Pollard, S. B., Porrill, J., Mayhew, J. E. W. & Frisby, J. P. Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. Robotics Research 19–26 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Burt, P. & Julesz, B. Perception 9, 671–682 (1980).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Prazdny, S. Biological Cybernetics 52, 93–99 (1985).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Krol, J. D. & van de Grind, W. A. Perception 9, 651–669 (1980).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pollard, S., Frisby, J. Transparency and the uniqueness constraint in human and computer stereo vision. Nature 347, 553–556 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1038/347553a0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/347553a0

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing