Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Depth Perception and Spatial Vision

Depth Perception and Spatial Vision

Depth perception is the ability to perceive objects three-dimensionally. It relies on two types of cues: binocular and monocular. Binocular cues depend on the combination of images from both eyes and how the eyes work together. Since the eyes are in slightly different positions, each eye captures a slightly different image. This disparity between images, known as binocular disparity, helps the brain interpret depth. When the brain compares these images, it determines the distance to an object.

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Post-saccadic disruption of semantic category information in naturalistic scenes.

Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior·2026

Same author

Contralateral delay activity as a marker of visual working memory capacity: A multi-site registered replication.

Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior·2026

Same author

Top-down motivation both decreases and increases feature interference following a saccade.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026

Same author

Achieving more human brain-like vision via human EEG representational alignment.

Communications biology·2026

Same author

Spatiotemporal predictability of saccades modulates postsaccadic feature interference.

Journal of vision·2025

Same author

Learned relevance of a distracting cue can influence feature interference errors.

Visual cognition·2025

Same journal

Low prevalence targets are primarily missed due to mind wandering.

Attention, perception & psychophysics·2026

Same journal

Properties of the threshold stimulus exposure duration (TSED) measure of visual search efficiency.

Attention, perception & psychophysics·2026

Same journal

Auditory selective attention in depth: Investigating directional dependency across front, lateral, and rear spaces.

Attention, perception & psychophysics·2026

Same journal

Dissociations between stereoacuity and visual acuity with binocular night vision goggles.

Attention, perception & psychophysics·2026

Same journal

Reward-based prioritization and perceptual feature effects on attentional flexibility in working memory.

Attention, perception & psychophysics·2026

Same journal

Listeners near-optimally integrate acoustic and semantic cues in spoken word recognition: Evidence from experiments manipulating cue order and reliability.

Attention, perception & psychophysics·2026

See all related articles

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Apr 7, 2026

Measuring Attention and Visual Processing Speed by Model-based Analysis of Temporal-order Judgments

Measuring Attention and Visual Processing Speed by Model-based Analysis of Temporal-order Judgments

Published on: January 23, 2017

Divided spatial attention and feature-mixing errors.

Julie D Golomb¹

¹Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, 201 Lazenby Hall 1827 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA. golomb.9@osu.edu.

Attention, Perception & Psychophysics

|July 12, 2015

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

Splitting spatial attention can cause feature-mixing errors, blending colors from attended locations. However, color similarity influences this, causing repulsion when colors are alike, not mixing.

Keywords:

Feature binding Repulsion Target–distractor similarity Visual attention

More Related Videos

Central and Divided Visual Field Presentation of Emotional Images to Measure Hemispheric Differences in Motivated Attention

Central and Divided Visual Field Presentation of Emotional Images to Measure Hemispheric Differences in Motivated Attention

Published on: November 16, 2017

Investigating the Deployment of Visual Attention Before Accurate and Averaging Saccades via Eye Tracking and Assessment of Visual Sensitivity

Investigating the Deployment of Visual Attention Before Accurate and Averaging Saccades via Eye Tracking and Assessment of Visual Sensitivity

Published on: March 18, 2019

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Apr 7, 2026

Measuring Attention and Visual Processing Speed by Model-based Analysis of Temporal-order Judgments

Measuring Attention and Visual Processing Speed by Model-based Analysis of Temporal-order Judgments

Published on: January 23, 2017

Central and Divided Visual Field Presentation of Emotional Images to Measure Hemispheric Differences in Motivated Attention

Central and Divided Visual Field Presentation of Emotional Images to Measure Hemispheric Differences in Motivated Attention

Published on: November 16, 2017

Investigating the Deployment of Visual Attention Before Accurate and Averaging Saccades via Eye Tracking and Assessment of Visual Sensitivity

Investigating the Deployment of Visual Attention Before Accurate and Averaging Saccades via Eye Tracking and Assessment of Visual Sensitivity

Published on: March 18, 2019

Area of Science:

Cognitive Psychology
Neuroscience
Visual Perception

Background:

Spatial attention is crucial for binding features of objects.
Shifting and splitting attention can lead to distinct feature-binding errors.
Feature-mixing errors occur when attention is split, blending features from attended locations.

Purpose of the Study:

To investigate if target-distractor similarity influences feature-mixing errors during split spatial attention.
To determine how varying color distances between attended stimuli affects feature-binding errors.

Main Methods:

Subjects were instructed to split attention between two spatial locations.
Stimuli involved an array of colored items, followed by a report cue.
Target-distractor similarity was manipulated by altering color space distances.

Main Results:

Probabilistic modeling confirmed feature-mixing errors across conditions.
Large color differences replicated feature-mixing.
Small color differences resulted in repulsion, shifting reported color away from distractors.

Conclusions:

Feature-mixing errors are modulated by target-distractor similarity.
Color similarity plays a critical role in the nature of feature-binding errors under split attention.