Rehabilitation of a classical notion of Panum's fusional area

It is argued that (1) the work of Burt and Julesz does not challenge the classical notion of Panum's fusional area; (2) their disparity gradient concept is contradicted by some of their own findings as well as by those of Krol and van de Grind; (3) their results can be accounted for by the classical concept of Panum's fusional area if eye vergence is taken into account; (4) the explanations suggested by Burt and Julesz for the depth perception aspects of Panum's limiting case and the double-nail illusion are based on unwarranted generalisation of results concerning binocular direction vision.