Journal of Experimental Psychology: Copyright 1981 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

Human Perception and Performance 0096-1523781 /0701 -0030S00.75

1981, Vol. 7, No. 1,30-40

Why Two Eyes Are Better Than One: The Two Views
of Binocular Vision
Rebecca K. Jones and David N. Lee
University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland

Despite centuries of research on the topic, the answer to the question "Are two
eyes significantly better than one, independent of stereopsis?" is still uncertain.
In this investigation, steps are taken toward answering the question in a behav-
ioral context. Three sets of experiments are reported in which human binocular
and monocular performance are compared in a variety of exteroceptive and
visuomotor tasks. In all of the experiments, two eyes facilitated performance.
The findings suggest that the binocular system is able to detect the matching
information, that is, the concordance, in the monocular optic arrays and to use
that information to increase visual efficiency. Furthermore, stereopsis was not
found to be important in the performance of visuomotor skills in three dimensions
when the subjects were free to move their heads. Thus, the results indicate that
an important ecological benefit of binocular frontal vision is having binocular
concordance, rather than having binocular disparity.

What is the ecological value of binocular
vision? Does having two partially overlap-
ping views of the world enable us to perceive
the environment and to control our own
movements within it more accurately? De-
spite the considerable amount of research
into binocular vision, few investigators have
addressed this fundamental question. Con-
sequently, though it is generally assumed
that binocular vision does provide a percep-
tual and behavioral advantage in our every-
day lives, it is not at all clear whether this
is in fact the case, or if it is, precisely how
binocular vision is advantageous.
To understand how binocularity might aid
normal perception and motor control, we
This research was supported by a National Science
Foundation graduate fellowship to the first author and
is based on her master's thesis from Edinburgh Uni-
versity. We thank Anne Pick, Edward Reed, Frank
Resile, and an anonymous reviewer for their comments
on the manuscript, and we thank Andrew Packard for
the photographs used in Experiment 2. Support of the
first author by the Center for Research in Human
Learning, University of Minnesota, through grants from
the National Science Foundation (NSF/BNS-77-22075)
and the National Institute for Child Health and Human
Development (HD-01136) is also gratefully acknowl-
edged.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Rebecca Jones,
who is now at the Institute of Child Development,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455.
first need to examine the binocular stimulus,
that is, the optical information available to
the binocular visual system. The optic flow
field at each eye contains detailed informa-
tion about both the environment and the
observer's movement relative to it (Koen-
derink & van Doom, 1977; Lee, 1974,
1980). Because our two eyes are spatially
separated, yet give overlapping views, the
two flow fields contain both mismatched and
matched optical information. Thus, there is
both binocular disparity and binocular con-
cordance, each or both of which might con-
tribute to a binocular advantage.
Since Wheatstone's (1838) invention of
the stereoscope, it has been well-known that
we can use binocular disparity to perceive
the size, shape, and distance of objects. In-
deed, most research on binocular vision over
the past 140 yr. has been concerned with
stereopsis alone. This has led to the consen-
sus that stereopsis is the raison d'etre of bin-
ocular vision (Pettigrew, 1972, p. 86) and
that binocular vision has no other function
(Bishop, 1973, p. 256). However, it is im-
portant to note that the experiments dem-
onstrating that stereopsis aids perception
have, for purposes of experimental control,
restricted the information available to each
eye, either by artificially separating the eyes'

30
 TWO VIEWS OF BINOCULAR VISION
view in a stereoscope or by immobilizing the
subject's head. It does not necessarily follow
from these experiments that binocular dis-
parity aids normal perception when the head
is free to move. In fact, Johansson (1973)
found no binocular advantage for subjects
judging distances up to about 2 m when head
motion was permitted. Thus, the binocular
advantage thought to be provided by stere-
opsis may occur only in a highly constrained
situation.
The emphasis placed on stereopsis has
somewhat obscured the potential binocular
advantage due to the similarities between the
two monocular views. Nevertheless, since the
monocular visual fields overlap considerably,
the two flow fields contain binocularly con-
cordant information, that is, information
that specifies the same properties of the en-
vironment, and this matched information
may facilitate perception. Psychophysical
experiments investigating whether two eyes
may be better than one independent of ste-
reopsis have been performed under the head-
ing of binocular summation. Strangely
enough, although many experimenters have
investigated summation, using much the
same psychophysical methods, there is little
consistency in their results. Whereas the ear-
liest summation experiments revealed large
binocular-monocular differences (e.g., Jurin,
1738; Porterfield, 1759), later experiments
showed no differences (Graham, 1930, 1931),
and even more recent reports are equivocal
(Stevens, 1967).
Blake and Fox (1973) have provided an
excellent review of the summation literature,
and they concluded that the simple question
of whether two eyes are better than one in-
dependent of stereopsis must be answered
with only a qualified yes. They found that
the degree to which binocular vision is su-
perior to monocular vision is small and is
apparent in only simple situations in which
the visual display is a light, a grating, or a
simple configuration against a homogeneous
background. They reported that in experi-
ments in which complex stimuli have been
used, no evidence for summation has been
found. Thus, when considering the func-
tional significance of binocular summation,
these factors led Blake and Fox (1973, p.
31
182) to conclude that summation is essen-
tially an "epiphenomenon" and that stere-
opsis is the only important function of having
partial binocular overlap.
Although most investigators would agree
with Blake and Fox's (1973) conclusion,
Gibson (1966) has suggested that having
binocular concordance may be at least as
important as having binocular disparity. He
proposed that "frontal vision with two eyes
can be useful merely as two hands are useful
in touching things; they yield an extra input
of the same information, a redundancy of
input which helps perception." (p. 174)
Gibson's (1966) conception of how bin-
ocular overlap can aid perception is different
from the classical concept of summation.
Proponents of summation emphasize the ad-
dition of stimulus energies, and therefore
they use measures such as brightness sum-
mation at threshold. Gibson's (1966) anal-
ogy with active touch implies a fundamen-
tally different idea. How could the simple
summing of the totally different patterns of
afference from two hands aid perception? It
is likewise difficult to conceive how, with
disparate optic flow fields at the two eyes,
simply summing the different monocular
neural inputs would help one see better. If
using binocular concordance does in fact aid
perception, the underlying mechanism must
be quite different from a simple summation
mechanism.
To summarize, there are two potential
benefits of binocular vision, one based on
binocular disparity, or the mismatching of
structure in the monocular arrays, and the
other based on binocular concordance, or the
matching of information in the monocular
arrays. Whereas the former is generally
agreed to be important, the latter is thought
to be of questionable significance. The pur-
pose of this investigation was to examine to
what extent having binocularly concordant
information facilitates perception and the
visual control of movement in complex sit-
uations. In the first set of experiments, we
examined whether binocular vision aids ex-
teroception (the pickup of information about
the environment) when stereopsis is irrele-
vant to the task. The remaining two sets of
experiments were concerned with the role of
32 REBECCA K. JONES AND DAVID N. LEE
binocular vision in the control of movements.
We examined whether binocular vision fa-
cilitates exproprioception (the detection of
information about the position, orientation,
and movement of the body relative to the
environment; Lee, 1978), which is necessary
for controlling activity. In the second set of
experiments, stereopsis was irrelevant to the
tasks, and in the third set of experiments,
stereopsis could have facilitated perfor-
mance.
Exteroceptive Skills
Three tasks were designed to test whether
having binocular concordance facilitates ex-
teroception. The first task was similar to that
used by Townsend (1968), whose failure to
find summation supports Blake and Fox's
(1973) hypothesis that binocular vision pro-
vides an advantage only in situations in
which the stimulus display is simple: subjects
identified letters on a chart. The second was
a slightly more complex form-detection task:
subjects were required to locate, in a color
photograph, the outline of a camouflaged
octopus. The third task tested whether color
discrimination is better binocularly than
monocularly with a standard color test.
General Method
The experiments were performed in a small (2.5 m X
3 m) light-proof room. Illumination was provided by a
150-W light bulb with a dimmer attachment. The sug-
gestion has been made in the literature that there is a
greater binocular advantage in dim light than in bright
light (Forbes & Mote, 1956; Laird, 1924; Shaad, 1935).
Therefore, the experiments were performed in both nor-
mal bright light, 16 ft-C. (172.22 Ix), and dim light,
.5 ft-C. (5.38 Ix), to test this possibility. Illumination
was measured with a Lunasix 3 exposure meter.
Subjects were dark adapted for 10 min. before per-
forming the trials in dim light. Although eye dominance
has not proved to be a significant factor in previous
related studies (e.g., Minucci & Conners, 1964), it was
controlled for in the present experiments. Dominance
was determined by a simple sighting task, and in all
three experiments, half of the subjects covered their
dominant eye and half covered their nondominant eye
with an eye patch. The eye patch, secured with thin
elastic around the head, was cushioned at the edges with
cotton and adhesive tape to provide maximum comfort,
complete light occlusion, and little slippage.
Each subject participated in four experimental con-
ditions: binocular bright light, binocular dim light, mon-
ocular bright light, and monocular dim light. Because
of the time required for dark adaptation, the bright light
trials were blocked together, as were the dim light trials.
Half of the subjects began their trials in the bright light
and half in the dim light.
Subjects
Ten adults participated in the set of experiments.
They were either students or staff members of the Psy-
chology Department, Edinburgh University. All had
either normal or corrected-to-normal vision and were
naive about the hypothesis being tested.
Experiment 1: Letter Identification
Method
Visual display materials. Black capital Letra-set
letters were transferred onto a white, 40 cm X 40 cm
piece of cardboard to form four lines, each comprised
of all 26 Roman letters in a different random order. The
lines were centered on the card with 5 cm between them.
The letters were approximately 5 mm tall and wide and
subtended a visual angle of roughly 7 minutes of arc.
Their segments were 1 mm thick, and they were evenly
spaced with 5 mm between them. The lines were num-
bered 1-4, and the entire chart subtended a visual angle
of roughly 8.65°.
Procedure. Subjects were seated 2.65 m from the
letter chart, which was at eye height, and were required
to read a different line of letters under each of the four
experimental conditions. The subject's score for each
condition was the number of errors in identification,
allowing a possible range of 0-26.
Results
Subjects made fewer identification errors
when they viewed the letters binocularly
than when they viewed them monocularly,
and fewer errors were made under the bright
light condition than under the dim light con-
dition. In addition, an interaction between
the factors of illumination and viewing con-
dition indicated that binocular vision con-
ferred a greater advantage in the dim light
than in the bright light.
Following a preliminary analysis which
showed that the factor of eye dominance had
no effect, a repeated measures analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was performed on the
number of errors for the three factors of
group (bright light trials first vs. dim light
trials first), eyes (binocular vs. monocular),
and light (bright vs. dim). Significant main
effects were found for eyes, F(\, 8) = 90.6,
p < .01, and light, F(l, 8) = 103.72,/j < .01,
and a significant interaction was found be-
tween them, F(l, 8) = 172.22, p< .01. The
main effect for group was not significant, nor
 TWO VIEWS OF BINOCULAR VISION
were any of the other interactions. New-
man-Keuls post hoc comparisons were per-
formed on the means for the interaction be-
tween eyes and light. The results appear in
Table 1.
Experiment 2: Detection of Camouflaged
Octopuses
Method
Visual display materials. Fifteen 20 cm X 25 cm
color photographs of octopuses served as the displays.
The photographs were selected from a collection com-
piled by biologists studying camouflaging in octopuses
(Packard & Sanders, 1969, 1971). Each photograph
showed an entire octopus attempting to camouflage itself
by matching the pattern of its coloring to its surround.
Three photographs served as sample pictures, two show-
ing uncamouflaged octopuses and the other showing a
camouflaged octopus. The remaining 12 were test pic-
tures and were chosen on the basis of informal testing,
which showed them to be roughly equivalent in their
degrees of difficulty for detecting the octopus.
Procedure. Subjects viewed the three sample pic-
tures first, to familiarize them both with octopuses and
the test procedure. Following that, they viewed three
photographs, one at a time, under each of the four con-
ditions: binocular bright light, binocular dim light, mon-
ocular bright light, and monocular dim light. The 12
photographs were randomly distributed across the four
conditions for each subject. Subjects were given a cot-
ton-tipped swab and instructed to trace the outline of
the shape of the octopus on the surface of the photo-
graph, and they were timed to completion of the task.
The experimenter had tracings of the octopuses and im-
mediately informed subjects when they made an error.
Subjects continued trying to trace the octopus until they
succeeded. Out of 120 trials, there were three failures
to outline the octopus within 3 min. Because the failures
were all in the monocular dim light condition, to score
those trials at 180 sec would have biased the data against
the null hypothesis being tested. It was decided that they
should be given the highest score obtained by a suc-
cessful subject under the condition, which was 120 sec.
Results
Under the dim light condition, subjects
traced the outline of the octopuses more
Table 1
Mean Errors in Letter Identification in
Experiment 1
Illumination Binocular Monocular
Bright .6 2.0
Dim 7.3 17.0
Note. Means across rows and down columns all differ
significantly at the .01 level.
33
Table 2
Mean Times to Detect the Camouflaged
Octopuses in Experiment 2
Illumination Binocular Monocular
Bright 20.4a 31.8.
Dim 32.0a 52.8b
Note. Means with the same subscript down columns and
across rows do not differ significantly. Data are given
in seconds.
quickly when they viewed the photographs
binocularly than when they viewed them
monocularly. However, the binocular advan-
tage in the bright light condition was not
statistically significant.
As in Experiment 1, a preliminary anal-
ysis showed that eye dominance had no ef-
fect, so a repeated measures ANOVA was per-
formed on the times to completion of the
task for the factors of group (bright light
trials first vs. dim light trials first), eyes
(binocular vs. monocular), light (bright vs.
dim), and trials (lst-3rd). The main effects
for eyes, F(l, 8) = 15.48, p < .01, and light,
F(l, 8) = 5.91, /><.01, were statistically
significant, but the effects for neither groups
nor trials were. The four-way interaction
among the factors was statistically signifi-
cant, but its psychological significance was
not apparent. Although none of the other
interactions reached statistical significance,
since an interaction had been expected be-
tween the factors of eyes and light, New-
man-Keuls post hoc comparisons were per-
formed. The results appear in Table 2.
Experiment 3: Color Discrimination
Method
Color test materials. The Farnsworth-MunselllOO-
Hue Test for the Examination of Color Discrimination
was used. The test consists of four cases containing 85
different colored chips in all (21 in each of three and
22 in one). Two pilot caps are fixed on either end of
each panel, and the chips form a regular color series
between them. The chips are numbered on the back,
and when arranged correctly, follow consecutively. The
score for a cap is the sum of the differences between the
number of that cap and the numbers of the caps adjacent
to it, minus two. Thus, the best possible score is zero.
Procedure. The test was administered with the stan-
dard instructions and in the standard way, except for
the lighting and viewing conditions. Each of the four
sets of chips was randomly assigned to the four condi-
34 REBECCA K. JONES AND DAVID N. LEE
Table 3
Error Scores on Color Discrimination Test in
Experiment 3
Illumination Binocular Monocular
Bright 6.6 12.2
Dim 22.5 40.0
Note. Means across rows and down columns all differ
significantly at the .05 level.
tions: binocular bright light, binocular dim light, mon-
ocular bright light, and monocular dim light. Each box
was scored on its own, excluding the 85th chip, since
there was 1 extra chip in the series from 85 to 21.
Results
Subjects were better able to arrange the
colors properly when they viewed them bin-
ocularly than when they viewed them mon-
ocularly, and performance was better in the
bright light condition than in the dim light
condition. Again, an interaction between the
factors of illumination and viewing condition
indicated that the binocular advantage was
greater in the dim light condition than in the
bright light condition.
Since a preliminary analysis showed that
the factor of eye dominance had no effect,
a repeated measures ANOVA was performed
on the scores for the factors of group (bright
light trials first vs. dim light trials first), eyes
(binocular vs. monocular), and light (bright
vs. dim). The main effects for eyes, F( 1, 8) =
48.51, p < .01, and light, F(l, 8) = 33.33,
p < .01, were statistically significant, as was
the interaction between eyes and light, F(l,
8) = 23.29, p<.01. The main effect for
group was not significant, nor were any of
the other interactions. Newman-Keuls post
hoc comparisons were performed on the
means for the interaction between eyes and
light. The results appear in Table 3.
Visuomotor Skills 1
The first set of experiments showed that
using binocularly concordant information
can significantly enhance the perception of
form and color. The results, particularly of
Experiment 2 (the detection of camouflaged
octopuses), militate against the conclusion
reached by Blake and Fox (1973) that bin-
ocular vision aids perception only when the
stimulus display is simple. Our results sug-
gest that using binocularly concordant in-
formation facilitates exteroception in gen-
eral.
The second set of experiments tested
whether binocular vision also facilitates ex-
proprioception—the pickup of information
about the position, orientation, and move-
ment of the body relative to the environ-
ment—when stereopsis is irrelevant. Three
representative skills were chosen: manipu-
lative control, interacting with a moving ob-
ject, and control of whole body movement
in maintaining stance. To control for the
potential advantage of binocular stereopsis,
the tasks were designed so that disparity in-
formation was irrelevant.
Experiment 4: Bead Threading Using
Closed-Circuit TV
Method
Subjects. Ten students from the Psychology De-
partment, Edinburgh University, participated in the ex-
periment. All had either normal or corrected-to-normal
vision and were naive about the hypothesis being tested.
Apparatus. Subjects were seated in front of a 23-cm
closed-circuit TV monitor and placed their hands to
their right, behind a curtain. The TV camera, placed
directly to the right of the subjects at their eye height,
was focused on the subjects' hands. A similar system
was used by Smith (1962), who found that subjects'
performance of a skill was unimpaired when the camera
was displaced by less than 30° and if no time delay was
introduced. The present situation met those constraints.
Ten colored wooden beads, 1.5 cm in diameter, with 5-
mm diameter holes, were placed in a round plastic con-
tainer, 9 cm in diameter and 2 cm deep. Subjects were
required to thread the beads onto a stiff, plastic, 80-cm
long string that was 3 mm in diameter. The time taken
to thread all 10 beads onto the string was recorded on
a stopwatch.
Procedure. To acquaint the subjects with the task
and the unusual viewing conditions, five practice trials,
performed binocularly, preceded the tests trials. The
first practice trial was untimed so that the subject would
feel relaxed; the other four practice trials were timed.
Subjects performed five monocular and five binocular
test trials. To counterbalance the potential effects of
practice and fatigue, alternate subjects began with mon-
ocular and binocular trials. Since eye dominance had
not been found to be an important factor in either Ex-
periments 1-3 or previous experiments, subjects chose
which eye to cover with an eye patch.
Results
The results were that subjects were able
to thread the beads onto the string more
 TWO VIEWS OF BINOCULAR VISION
quickly using binocular vision (M = 29.4
sec) than using monocular vision (M = 34.4
sec), even though they could only see their
hands on a TV screen and so binocular dis-
parity information was irrelevant to the task.
A repeated measures ANOVA was performed
on the time to completion of the trials for
the factors of eyes (binocular vs. monocular)
and trials (lst-5th). A significant main ef-
fect was found for eyes, F(l, 9) = 47.7\,p <
.01, but neither the main effect for trials nor
the interaction between the two factors was
statistically significant.
Experiment 5: Tracking a Moving Target
Using Closed-Circuit TV
Method
Subjects. Ten students from the Psychology De-
partment, Edinburgh University, participated in the ex-
periment. All had either normal or corrected-to-normal
vision, were right-handed, and were naive about the
hypothesis being tested.
Apparatus. A pursuit rotor (manufactured by Forth
Instruments, Dalkeith, Scotland) measuring 32 cm
square was placed horizontally on a table. A 20 cm X
20 cm, 2-cm wide square overlay was positioned over
the light bar, which was rotated clockwise at 6 revo-
lutions per minute. The subjects had to track the 2-cm
square moving target light around the square using a
40-cm long stylus bent at about 45°, 8 cm from the
bottom end. A photocell in the tip of the stylus registered
when it was on target. The closed-circuit TV arrange-
ment described in Experiment 4 was again used. The
camera was positioned to take in only the top of the
pursuit rotor and the bottom half of the stylus.
Procedure. Subjects were seated in front of the mon-
itor with the pursuit rotor to their right, behind a cur-
tain. They were allowed to practice tracking the target
light with the stylus at their own pace to familiarize
them with the novel task and viewing condition. Follow-
ing this, 5 practice trials were performed binocularly.
The test trials, which consisted of 10 binocular and 10
monocular trials, were 10 sec long with 10-sec rests be-
tween them. Subjects were verbally instructed to start
and stop, and between trials they rested the stylus in the
middle of the square. There was a brief rest period be-
tween the binocular and monocular trials and also a 30-
sec rest period between the 5th and 6th trials within
each condition. To counterbalance the potential effects
of practice and fatigue, alternate subjects began with
binocular or monocular trials, Subjects chose which eye
to cover with an eye patch.
Results
Subjects tracked the moving target light
better under binocular viewing than under
monocular viewing. Their performance also
35
improved slightly across trials. A repeated
measures ANOVA was performed on the total
time the stylus was in contact with the target
on each trial for the factors of eyes (binoc-
ular vs. monocular) and trials (lst-10th).
Significant main effects were found for both
factors: eyes, F(l, 9) = 20.33, p < .01, and
trials, F(9, 81) = 12.09, p< .01. Thus, under
binocular viewing, subjects made more con-
tact with the light (M = 5.92 sec) than
they did under monocular viewing (M =
4.64 sec).
Experiment 6: Control of Stance
Lee and Lishman (1975) have shown that
vision is an important source of expropri-
oceptive information for controlling balance
when standing. Their results show that vision
normally provides more sensitive informa-
tion about body sway than do the other per-
ceptual systems. However, the question as
to whether, in this fundamental human skill,
control is finer with binocular vision than
with monocular vision has not been tested.
This was the purpose of the following ex-
periment.
Method
Subjects. Five students from the Psychology De-
partment, Edinburgh University, participated in the ex-
periment. All had either normal or corrected-to-normal
vision and were naive about the hypothesis being tested.
Apparatus. A capacitance transducer body sway
meter was used to monitor sway. This device detects the
capacitance between the subject's upper body, grounded
by a hand-held wire, and a sensitive plate. The capac-
itance is linear with distance over a range of 50-400
mm. The distance moved by the subject's upper body
during successive 6-sec periods is digitally displayed.
(For details about the device, see Lee & Lishman,
1975).
Procedure. Subjects participated in four experimen-
tal conditions: binocular bright light, binocular dim
light, monocular bright light, and monocular dim light.
The procedure was the same as in Experiments 1-3 ex-
cept that all five subjects started their test trials in the
dim light. Subjects stood with one foot in front of the
other in a straight line, a somewhat awkward position
that induced slight lateral sway. Their hands were
clasped behind their backs, holding the ground wire, and
the sway meter was to their left, approximately 20 cm
from the upper body. Subjects stood facing a wall, ap-
proximately 50 cm away, and were instructed to try to
stand as still as possible. Ten sway meter readings were
taken over the course of a minute for each of the four
conditions. Subjects relaxed for a minute or two between
conditions.
36 REBECCA K. JONES AND DAVID N. LEE
Table 4
Mean Body Sway in Experiment 6
Illumination Binocular Monocular
Bright 1.49 2.06
Dim 2.24 3.24
Note. Means across rows and down columns all differ
significantly at the .05 level. Data are given in cm/6
sec.
Results
Subjects controlled their body sway better
in the binocular condition than in the mon-
ocular condition, and better in the bright
light condition than in the dim light condi-
tion. A repeated measures ANOVA was per-
formed on the means of the 10 readings for
each condition. Significant main effects were
found for eyes (binocular vs. monocular),
F(\, 4) = 57.99, p< .01, and light (bright
vs. dim), F(l, 4) = 78.02, p < .01. Although
the interaction between eyes and light was
not statistically significant, since an inter-
action had been expected on the basis of
Experiments 1-3, Newman-Keuls post hoc
comparisons were performed. The results
appear in Table 4. It is unlikely that the
binocular advantage was due to stereopsis,
since it was lateral sway that was measured,
and to control this the subjects needed in-
formation about their movement parallel to
the wall they were facing, the relevant in-
formation being available in the optic flow
field at each eye.
Visuomotor Skills 2
The experiments reported so far were all
designed so that binocular disparity infor-
mation was irrelevant for the performance
of the tasks. Therefore, the binocular ad-
vantage that was found in both the extero-
ceptive tasks (Experiments 1-3) and the vi-
suomotor tasks (Experiments 4-6) cannot
be attributed to binocular stereopsis. Rather,
the results attest to the benefit of using bin-
ocularly concordant information.
The purpose of the final set of experiments
was to investigate to what extent having bin-
ocular disparity and binocular concordance
aids exproprioception under normal circum-
stances when the head is free to move. Four
visuomotor tasks were chosen for which bin-
ocular vision would normally be expected to
aid performance. They were threading a nee-
dle, pouring water into a narrow-necked ves-
sel, reaching for targets with the hand visi-
ble, and reaching with the hand occluded.
The tasks were performed binocularly and
monocularly under bright illumination, where
stereopsis should operate, and under very
dim illumination, where the subjects' ability
to pick up binocular disparity information
(i.e., their stereoacuity) was greatly reduced.
Thus, if binocular stereopsis were aiding ex-
proprioception, binocular performance in the
bright light should be markedly better than
binocular performance in the very dim light,
and also markedly better than monocular
performance in the bright light. A binocular
advantage under dim light would be attrib-
utable to the use of binocularly concordant
information.
General Method
The four experiments were performed in the same
room as Experiments 1-3, and the same procedure was
followed, with two exceptions. First, the level of illu-
mination in the dim light condition was reduced from
.5 ft-C. (5.38 Ix) to .2 ft-C. (2.15 Ix) to degrade ste-
reoacuity. Both Mueller and Lloyd (1948) and Berry,
Riggs, and Duncan (1950) have found that stereoacuity
suffers markedly at 0 log ml and becomes increasingly
worse at lower luminance levels. At .2 ft-C. of illumi-
nation, the luminance of the objects used in the following
experiments ranged from -1.27 log ml (-4.04 cd/m 2 ) to
-1.67 log ml (-5.32 cd/m 2 ) (measured with an SEI pho-
tometer); these values were close to the lowest luminance
that Berry et al. used (-1.39 log ml [-4.42 cd/m 2 ]), when
they found stereoacuity to be extremely poor. The sec-
ond procedural change was in the control for eye dom-
inance. Since dominance had not proven to be an im-
portant variable, subjects simply covered one eye with
an eye patch.
Subjects
Ten students from the Psychology Department, Edin-
burgh University, participated in the set of experiments.
All had either normal or corrected-to-normal vision and
normal binocular stereopsis as indicated by their ability
to detect the form in a number of random-dot stereo-
grams (Julesz, 1971). All were naive about the hypoth-
esis being tested.
Experiment 7: Needle Threading
Method
Apparatus and procedure. Subjects were seated at
a table and were handed an ordinary sewing needle (4
 TWO VIEWS OF BINOCULAR VISION 37

cm long with a 2-mm eye) and white cotton-covered Table 6

polyester thread. One practice trial preceded the test Mean Spillage in Experiment 8
trials to familiarize subjects with the equipment. Sub-
jects began each test trial with both hands resting on Illumination Binocular Monocular
the edge of the table, with the needle in one hand the
thread in the other. They were given a verbal signal to Bright .39a 1.84b
begin and were timed from the start until they had suc- Dim .59a 3.69,;
cessfully pulled the thread through the eye of the needle.
The thread was trimmed between trials to prevent fray- Note. Means with the same subscript down columns and
ing from hindering performance. Subjects performed across rows do not differ significantly. Data are given
four trials under each of the four conditions: binocular in milliliters.
bright light, binocular dim light, monocular bright light,
and monocular dim light.
Experiment 8: Water Pouring
This task differed from the preceding in
Results that it required precise control of movement
in relation to an object (the vessel to be
A repeated measures ANOVA was per- filled) that was not in contact with the hand
formed on the times to completion of each or any part of the body.
trial for the factors of group (bright light
trials first vs. dim light trials first), eyes Method
(binocular vs. monocular), light (bright vs. Apparatus and procedure. An 8-ml graduated cyl-
dim), and trials (lst-4th). Significant main inder was placed in the center of a round container, 10
effects were found for eyes, F(\, 8) = 22.04, cm in diameter and 5 cm deep. The subject's task was
p < .01, and light, F(\, 8) = 9.12, p < .05. to fill the 8-ml cylinder, minimizing spillage, by pouring
(Also, significant interactions were found water into it from a full 50-ml Ehrlenmyer flask. The
between group and light and among eyes, diameters of the tops of the two containers were ap-
proximately 1 cm. Subjects were instructed not to touch
light, and trials, but since these interactions the tops of the flask and cylinder, and if they inadver-
do not bear on the hypothesis being tested, tently did so, they were requested to move the flask away
they will not be discussed here.) Although and begin again. Subjects performed four trials under
the interaction between eyes and light was each of the four conditions: binocular bright light, bin-
ocular dim light, monocular bright light, and monocular
not statistically significant, since an inter- dim light. After each trial the spillage was measured
action had been expected, Newman-Keuls by the experimenter to the nearest .25 ml, the cylinder
post hoc comparisons were performed. was emptied, and the flask was refilled.
The results (Table 5) show that binocular
stereopsis did not significantly aid perfor- Results
mance. Binocular performance in the bright A repeated measures ANOVA was per-
light, which was the only condition in which formed on the amount of spillage for each
binocular disparity information could have trial for the factors of group (bright light
been used, was not significantly better than trials first vs. dim light trials first), eyes
either the monocular bright or the binocular (binocular vs. monocular), light (bright vs.
dim performances. However, having binoc- dim), and trials (lst-4th). Significant main
ular concordance did facilitate performance effects were found for eyes, F(l, 8) = 32.04,
in the dim light. p < .01, and light, F(l, 8) = 7.34, p < .05,
and a significant interaction was found be-
tween the factors of eyes and light, F( 1, 8) =
Table 5 7.34, p < .05. No other main effects or
Mean Times to Thread Needle in Experiment 7 interactions were statistically significant.
Illumination Binocular Monocular Newman-Keuls post hoc comparisons were
performed on the means for the interaction.
Bright 5.30, 10.85. The results are given in Table 6.
Dim 8.78a 20.50b As in Experiment 7, binocular perfor-
Note. Means with the same subscript down columns and mance in the bright light was not signifi-
across rows do not differ significantly. Data are given cantly better than binocular performance in
in seconds. the dim light in which stereoacuity was
38 REBECCA K. JONES AND DAVID N. LEE

Table 7 pected between the factors of eyes and light,

Mean Deviation From Target in Experiment 9 Newman-Keuls post hoc comparisons were
performed. The results are given in Table 7.
Illumination Binocular Monocular
The pattern of results is the same as for
Bright 3.14, 4.28. Experiment 7, and the same conclusions can
Dim 3.74a 6.64b be drawn: Binocular stereopsis did not sig-
Note. Means with the same subscript down columns and nificantly facilitate performance, whereas
across rows do not differ significantly. Data are given having binocular concordance did, in the dim
in millimeters. light.

greatly reduced. Thus, binocular stereopsis Experiment 10: Reaching With Hand
did not facilitate performance as much as Invisible
might have been expected. However, having
binocular concordance did aid performance This was a more demanding distance judg-
at both levels of illumination. ment task than the previous one in that the
subjects had to control their reaching on the
Experiment 9: Reaching With Hand basis of visual exproprioceptive information
Visible about the positions of the targets relative to
their body rather than their hand, since this
In the following experiment subjects was out of view.
reached for a target when their hand was
visible. It was predicted that if stereopsis is
Method
important in controlling ordinary behavior,
it should facilitate performance on this task Apparatus and procedure. The five-rod apparatus
requiring judgments of relative distance. used in Experiment 9 was secured to a 17-mm thick
tray that pulled out from the side of a desk. A sheet of
graph paper was attached to the bottom of the tray.
Method Subjects were seated in front of the apparatus, which
Apparatus and procedure. A row of five 1-mm di- was less than an arm's length away. They were given
ameter rods was mounted vertically at 5-cm intervals a differently colored pen for each of the four conditions
between two horizontal 5 cm X 30 cm pieces of plywood and were instructed to reach under the tray and touch
3-mm thick. A sheet of graph paper was attached, the pen to the tray underneath the point where they
graph-side down, to the top piece of plywood. Subjects judged the rod to be located on the top of the tray.
sat at a table on which the apparatus was secured, just Although subjects could see their hand at the beginning
under an arm's length away, with the five rods in a of the trials, when it was in the vicinity of the rods, they
frontal plane. They were handed a hatpin and instructed could not see beyond the elbow. Subjects randomly be-
to reach out and jab the paper when they judged the gan at either the far right or the far left rod and made
pin to be lined up with the rod underneath it. The re- one judgment for each of the five rods, without seeing
sulting holes were not visible to the subjects. Subjects their hand.
used their preferred hand and randomly began at the
far left or far right rod and made one judgment for each
of the five rods. They performed the routine once under Results
each of the four conditions, a new sheet of paper being Since no consistency was found in the di-
used each time.
rection of the errors, a repeated measures
Results ANOVA was performed simply on the mag-
nitudes of the errors for the factors of group
No consistency was found in the direction (bright light trials first vs. dim light trials
of the subject's errors, so a repeated mea- first), eyes (binocular vs. monocular), light
sures ANOVA was performed on simply the (bright vs dim), and trials (lst-5th). Sig-
magnitude of the errors for the factors of nificant main effects were found for eyes,
group (bright light trials first vs. dim light F(l, 8) = 14.82,p < .01, and light, F(l, 8) =
trials first), eyes (binocular vs. monocular), 8.60, p < .05. (Also, significant interactions
light (bright vs. dim), and trials (lst-5th). were found between eyes and trials, between
Significant main effects were found for eyes, light and trials, and among group, light, and
F(l, 8) = 15.20,/? < .01, and light, F(\, 8) = trials, but since these interactions do not
10.49, p < .05, alone. No other main effects bear on the hypothesis being tested, they will
or interactions were statistically significant. not be discussed here.) Although the inter-
However, since an interaction had been ex- action between eyes and light was not sta-
 TWO VIEWS OF BINOCULAR VISION
tistically significant, since an interaction has
been expected, Newman-Keuls post hoc
comparisons were performed. The results are
given in Table 8. The pattern was the same
as for Experiments 7 and 9.
In summary, binocular stereopsis was not
found to facilitate performance significantly
in any of the four tasks requiring visual con-
trol of movements and distance estimations.
However, using binocular concordance did
facilitate performance on all of the tasks,
especially under dim illumination.
General Discussion
The question we sought to answer was
"Are two eyes significantly better than one,
independent of stereopsis?" The results of
all 10 experiments indicate that the answer
is yes. We found that using binocularly con-
cordant information provided both better
exteroception of form and color and better
exproprioception of the dynamic relationship
of the body to the environment, facilitating
control of manipulation, reaching, and bal-
ance.
As was noted earlier, it is unclear to what
extent using binocular disparity aids percep-
tion under normal circumstances, when the
head is moving. The results of the last set
of experiments suggest that the benefit of
stereopsis may in fact be limited to situations
in which the head is stationary. When the
head is still, the optic arrays at the two eyes
are static, and there is inadequate infor-
mation available in each monocular array
to specify the layout of the environment.
However, the visual system apparently can
obtain information from the disparity be-
tween the unchanging optic arrays if nec-
essary, as well as obtaining information from
the continually changing optic flow field at
each eye.
The relationship between these two ways
of obtaining information—binocular stati-
cally and monocular kinetically—is illus-
trated by experiments using random-dot
stereograms (Julesz, 1971) and random-dot
kinetic displays yoked to the subject's head
movements (Rogers & Graham, 1979). The
shape and relative depth of one surface lying
in front of another can be perceived either
on the basis of the disparity between the
binocular static optic arrays or on the basis
39
Table 8
Mean Deviation from Target in Experiment 10
Illumination Binocular Monocular
Bright 12.08a 16.16,
Dim 13.97. 23.08b
Note. Means with the same subscript down columns and
across rows do not differ significantly. Data are given
in millimeters.
of the kinetic structure of the optic flow field
at one eye alone. Each source provides in-
formation for the layout of the environment
that may be used in various situations. Our
results suggest that when the head is moving,
the monocular kinetic information is used
and the advantage of binocularity results
from the pickup of concordant information.
It is important to note that it is the in-
formation in the monocular arrays that is
concordant, not the optic flow fields them-
selves; they are noncongruent. This means
that the underlying mechanism cannot be
one that simply sums the raw inputs to the
eyes. Thus, the binocular advantage that we
found is not explicable in terms of either of
the two mechanisms proposed by psycho-
physicists, namely, "probability" or "neural
summation" (Blake & Fox, 1973). Rather,
it appears that the two eyes work together
as a unified dual ocular system that directly
registers the matching of information be-
tween the optic arrays (Gibson, 1979, p.
213). The two eyes are not two separate
sense channels for which signals must be
compared; rather they constitute a single
binocular system that detects concordant in-
formation.
The question remains as to why we found
such a robust binocular advantage when pre-
vious binocular summation investigations
resulted in somewhat equivocal data. The
major differences between our experiments
and summation experiments lie in the con-
straints placed on the observers and in the
nature of the stimulus display used. In our
experiments, the subjects were free to move
their heads, whereas in nearly all summation
experiments, subjects' heads are held sta-
tionary. It is possible that head movements
are a necessary part of the orienting mech-
anism involved in the use of binocular con-
cordance. That is, it may be easier for the
40 REBECCA K. JONES AND DAVID N. LEE
binocular system to detect the matching of
information in optical flow than it is in a
static binocular array. Thus, although sub-
jects in summation experiments may have
binocularly concordant information avail-
able, their use of it may be restricted by the
experimental situation.
Furthermore, the stimulus displays used
in summation experiments are nearly always
static. One exception is Rose's (1978) study,
in which phase-reversing sinusoidal gratings
were used to create apparent motion. Al-
though the magnitude of the summation ef-
fect found in most experiments is modest,
Rose found a significantly greater binocular
advantage with a moving display. In most
of the experiments we performed the subject
viewed a moving display, and perhaps the
great binocular advantage was due in part
to the motion. However, further research is
needed to determine the parameters that in-
fluence the ability to use both binocular con-
cordance and binocular disparity effectively
in ecologically valid situations.
References
Berry, R. N., Riggs, L. A., & Duncan, C. P. The relation
of vernier and depth discriminations to field bright-
ness. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1950, 40,
349-354.
Bishop, P. O. Neurophysiology of binocular single vision
and stereopsis. In R. Jung (Ed.). Handbook of sen-
sory physiology (Vol. VII/3): Central processing of
visual information. Berlin, West Germany: Springer-
Verlag, 1973.
Blake, R., & Fox, R. The psychophysical inquiry into
binocular summation. Perception & Psychophysics,
1973, 14, 161-185.
Forbes, L. M., & Mote, F. A. A comparison of the
variability of binocular and monocular threshold mea-
surements during dark adaptation in the human eye.
Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychol-
ogy, 1956, 49, 431-436.
Gibson, J. J. The senses considered as perceptual sys-
tems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1966.
Gibson, J. J. The ecological approach to visual percep-
tion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979.
Graham, C. H. An investigation of binocular summa-
tion: I. The fovea. Journal of General Psychology,
1930, 3, 494-510.
Graham, C. H. An investigation of binocular summa-
tion: II, The periphery. Journal of General Psychol-
ogy, 1931,5,311-328.
Johansson, G. Monocular movement parallax and near-
space perception. Perception, 1973, 2, 135-146.
Julesz, B. Foundations of cyclopean perception. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press, 1971.
Jurin, J. An essay upon distinct and indistinct vision.
Annexed to Smith, R., A compleat system ofopticks.
Cambridge, England: Cornelius Crownfield, 1738.
Koenderink, J. J., & van Doom, A. J. How an ambulant
observer can construct a model of the environment
from the geometrical structure of the visual inflow.
In G. Hauske & E. Butenandt (Eds.), Kybernetik
1977. Munich, West Germany: Oldenburg, 1977.
Laird, D. A. Studies relating to the problem of binocular
summation. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1924, 7, 276-290.
Lee, D. N. Visual information during locomotion. In
R. B. MacLeod & H. L. Pick (Eds.), Perception:
Essays in honor of James J. Gibson. Ithaca, N.Y.:
Cornell University Press, 1974.
Lee, D. N. The functions of vision. In H. L. Pick & E.
Saltzman (Eds.), Modes of perceiving and processing
information. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1978.
Lee, D. N. The optic flow field: The foundation of vision.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society,
London B, 1980, 290, 169-179.
Lee, D. N., & Lishman, J. R. Visual proprioceptive
control of stance. Journal of Human Movement Stud-
ies, 1975, /, 86-95.
Minucci, P. K., & Conners, M. M. Reaction time under
three viewing conditions: Binocular, dominant eye,
and nondominant eye. Journal of Experimental Psy-
chology, 1964,67, 268-275.
Mueller, C. G., & Lloyd, V. V. Stereoscopic acuity for
various levels of illumination. Proceedings of the Na-
tional Academy of Science of the U.S.A., 1948, 34,
223-227.
Packard, A., & Sanders, G. D. What the octopus shows
to the world. Endeavour, 1969, 28, 92-99.
Packard, A., & Sanders, G. D. Body patterns of Octopus
vulgaris and maturation of the response to distur-
bance. Animal Behavior, 1971, / 9, 780-790.
Pettigrew, J. D. The neurophysiology of binocular vision.
Scientific American, 1972, 227, 84-95.
Porterfield, W. A treatise on the eye: The manner and
phenomena of vision. (2 vols.). London: A. Miller,
1759.
Rogers, B., & Graham, M. Motion parallax as an in-
dependent cue for depth perception. Perception, 1979,
8, 125-134.
Rose, D. Monocular versus binocular contrast thresholds
for movement and pattern. Perception, 1978, 7, 195-
200.
Shaad, D. Binocular summation in scotopic vision. Jour-
nal of Experimental Psychology, 1935, 18, 391-413.
Smith, K. U. Delayed sensory feedback and behavior.
Philadelphia: Saunders, 1962.
Stevens, J. C. Brightness function: Binocular versus
monocular stimulation. Perception & Psychophysics,
1967, 2, 451-454.
Townsend, J. T. Binocular information summation and
the serial processing model. Perception & Psycho-
physics, 1968, 4, 125-128.
Wheatstone, C. Contributions to the physiology of vi-
sion: On some remarkable and hitherto unobserved
phenomena of binocular vision. Philosophical Trans-
actions of the Royal Society, 1838, 128, 371-394.
Received August 24, 1979 •