depth ambiguities. Without promoting the cues, their raw data (e.g., disparities and velocities) are in different units so that simple cue-combination strategies, such as averaging the depth estimates made using each cue, are impossible. When the missing parameters are the eye positions (vergence, gaze directions, and torsions), the promotion process is referred to as depth scaling. In particular, in central gaze, the raw sensory data for the cue (velocities, disparities, etc.) are scaled by (that is, multiplied by, or multiplied by the square of) an estimate of the fixation distance. To the extent that this scaling is done accurately, the result is depth constancy: perceived depth that is independent of changes in viewing conditions. In this hapter we will limit our discussion of cue promotion to the issue of scaling by the fixation distance. We review a number of ways in which depth scaling may be accomplished. Micha

This study presents three ¢ndings concerning the mechanisms of depth perception. First, the shape of the three-dimensional percept evoked by two-frame motion is de¢ned solely by the rotation component around an axis in the frontoparallel plane; the visual system assigns a default value to this rotation component to arrive at a unique solution. Second, when the visual axes of two eyes are almost parallel, the visual system uses a default vergence value to reconstruct stereoscopic depth. Third, the default vergence and default rotation angles are highly correlated across subjects. This correlation implies that the two modalities share a common scaling default at an internal level.

The difference between the way in which binocular disparity scales with viewing distance and the way in which motion parallax scales with viewing distance introduces a potential indirect cue for viewing distance: the viewing distance is the only distance at which disparity and motion specify the same depth. The present study examines whether this information is used. Two simulated ellipsoids were presented on a computer screen in complete darkness. The two ellipsoids were 6 to the left and right of straight ahead. Subjects set the width and depth of each ellipsoid to match a tennis ball, and set the distance of the one on the right to half that of the one on the left. The distance of the left ellipsoid varied between trials. On half of the trials it was static. On the other half it was rotating up and down around its frontal horizontal axis. Rotating the left ellipsoid influenced its set depth: rotating ellipsoids were set to be much more spherical. There was no influence on the set depth of the other ellipsoid, or on the set width of either. The set distance of the right ellipsoid was also unaffected. We conclude that subjects do not combine binocular disparity and motion parallax to obtain more veridical information about viewing distance. 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

The interaction of the depth cues of binocular disparity and motion parallax could potentially be used by the visual system to recover an estimate of the viewing distance. The present study investigated whether an interaction of stereo and motion has e#ects that persist over time to influence the perception of shape from stereo when the motion information is removed. Static stereoscopic ellipsoids were presented following the presentation of rotating stereoscopic ellipsoids, which were located either at the same or a di#erent viewing distance. It was predicted that shape judgements for static stimuli would be better after presentation of a rotating stimulus at the same viewing distance, than after presentation of one at a different viewing distance. No such di#erence was found. It was concluded that an interaction between stereo and motion depth cues does not influence the perception of subsequently presented static objects.