Is performance better with binocular viewing than with monocular viewing?

Is performance better with binocular viewing than with monocular viewing?

 

Table of Contents

Introduction. 2

Methods. 4

Results. 5

Discussion. 13

Conclusion. 14

References. 15

 

Introduction

The aim of the experiment was to investigate whether there is a difference between binocular viewing than monocular viewing. This has been a subject of discussion by many scholars especially on the subject of where either of perceptions is applicable. For example, in golfing, Bulson et al. (2016) observed that binocular viewing was better and more accurate especially on short ranges compared to monocular viewing when putting golf ball. This was an indication that there are many applications where binocular or monocular viewing is better.

In an experiment that tested reading speed between monocular and binocular vision, Johansson et al. (2014) noted that there was a difference of 2.1% in reading speed and the reading speed in binocular vision but this was not difference. However, it was noted that non-dominant eye was associated with increased progressive saccade length compared with dominant eye. Thus, individuals with binocular vision did not have any significant difference from those with monocular vision. This contracted the long-held understanding that binocular vision is has advantage of visual acuity. Elsewhere, Johansen et al. (2015) confirmed that eye dominance under binocular vision. The implied that people with normal eyesight, eye dominance does not have any significant importance but this depends on viewing conditions such as angle used. Further, performance of eye vision was emphasized by Shneor and Hochstein (2006)  when dominant eye met the target and was found to be better at processing vision compared to non-dominant. These results were different from those that were realised by Jainta et al. (2017) when they noted that people with binocular vision had an advantage in reading and specifically on word identification. When contrast was reduced, people with binocular vision performed better compared to those of monocular vision.  

Binocular vision is known to be better due to single vision, which is the primary advantage. It also has stereopsis, where individuals have a precise and deeper perception of subjects and vision can be enlarged. Due to single vision and stereopsis advantage, individuals can also have a wider field of vision (Bhola, 2006). However, according to Isotalo et al. (2004), in night vision, the advantages of stereopsis in binocular vision were dependent on an individual. Both monocular and binocular vision have advantage of postural stability and therefore no advantage over the other. Gaertner et al. (2013) differed with this and noted that binocular vision was better at controlling viewing distance and recognition of shapes. This was due to the four advantages of binocular vision mentioned above. Martinho III et al. (2014)added that there is a difference between abilities of monocular and binocular vision, noting that in view of tool tips, binocular vision was not necessary more important that monocular vision. They concluded that any resulting difference may be due to coordination of vision and mechanical control and not necessarily advantage of any of the two visions.

Schwarz et al.  (2014) noted that there is a difference between binocular and monocular vision in visual performance with aberration correction. While noting this difference, the researcher noted that binocular vision had advantage when visual acuity becomes worse. This means binocular vision was better in low light controlled conditions. This is due to one of the reasons where binocular vision is preferred over monocular vision that has less applications. In another condition where spherical (SA) and longitudinal chromatic aberrations (LCA) were used, they were found to improve monocular vision compared to binocular vision (Schwarz, et al., 2014). That there is a difference between the two and their applications was also investigated in the case of how optical blur influences stereo vision (Roger W. Li, et al., 2016). However, Hayashi et al. (2015) noted that glare symptoms were not different between the two groups of monocular and binocular vision.

On hue perception, there was no difference as was noted by Opper and Volbrecht (2017). The two noted that eye dominance did not have an effect. The results implicated that differences arise in cases of how image id formed using temporal retina. Similar results relating to formation and processing of images was noted by Holten et al. (2016) where they concluded that grouping of motion happens as a result of monocular information.

Research gap

As was noted above, there is no consensus on which between monocular or binocular vision is better, even though there were different and wide variation of experiments over the recent years. There are variations in context on how each experiment was done and specific objectives of the experiment. While there is no easy conclusion on which of the two is better, there is need to delve deeper and carry out specific experiment to find out whether there was a dominant eye and if the binocular vision had any advantages to the viewer compared to those with monocular vision.

This experiment used a similar approach to test which of the two viewing is better. To do this, the participants were required to assess which of the two eyes was dominant. As has been noted above there are different scenarios where monocular and binocular vision are similar or different. This research aimed to assess which is the dominant eye and whether differences noted benefitted binocular vision.

 Methods

The section explains and justifies procedures and tools that were used in this research as per the targeted objectives. Besides explanation for of the tools and where they were applied, alternatives are stated and why those used were appropriate. This is with respect to the aim of the experiment, which was to assess which is the dominant eye and whether there was any difference in vision between the two viewing perspectives.

Procedure of measuring a dominant eye

Participants were required to make a circle with the thumb and index finger of one hand. They were then asked to look at an object in the distance using both open eyes. While doing so, they were supposed to move a hand with circle, while closing one eye and aiming the object at the centre of the circle. Participants were to note an object that was aligned to either of the two eyes, that was the dominant eye.

Using a buzz wire

Students were supposed to move the hoop around the wire mechanism from one end to the other, doing so as quickly as possible but while ensuring the hoop and the wire do not touch, otherwise a buzz sound will be heard. The number of buzzes were recorded. Participants were instructed to use either hand, whichever they found comfortable and they could swap hands while doing the task.

One condition that was required during the experiment was to move the hoop while closing the non-dominant eye and for the second time, with both eyes open. For each participant, the number -of buzzes and time taken to move the hoop were recorded. Each of them was free to stop at any moment or complete it as many times as possible. These results were recorded in an Excel spreadsheet and analysed later using statistical tool such as variance of means, means and standard deviation. More robust statistical measurements were also used to assess if the differences, if any were significant or not. 

Results

The chapter presents the findings to an experiment that was carried out to find out the dominant eye and whether people with binocular vision had any advantage as far as vision was concerned, using this experiment of moving a hoop around a wire. Presented results cover descriptive statistics over the basic results of the 35 participants that were involved in both experiments.

Dominant eye and dominant hand

For 2D dominant eye, 34.3% of the participants had a left eye while the rest, the larger percentage of 65.7% had the right eye being dominant.  

 

2D Dominant Eye
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Left	12	34.3	34.3	34.3
	Right	23	65.7	65.7	100.0
	Total	35	100.0	100.0

 

 

 

2D dominant hand was also assessed and the results were as indicated below.

Almost all participants, 97.14% had dominant right hand while only 2.86% had dominant left hand. This was an indication that most participants had their right eye and hand being dominant while the rest, the few that were left having the left eye and hand respectively being dominant.

 

The following results present performance of binocular viewing and errors that were made by participants. For 2D monocular and binocular, 2D non-dominant monocular time, 3D binocular time and 3D non dominant monocular time gave the following results:

 

Descriptive Statistics
	N	Mean	Std. Deviation
2D Binocular Time	35	19.7697	8.46779
2D Dom Eye Monocular Time	35	38.0434	27.02794
2D Non Dom Monocular Time	35	39.6809	24.91891
3D Binocular Time	35	28.8223	13.05372
3D Dom Eye Monocular Time	35	50.7986	27.76430
3D Non Dom Monocular Time	35	53.1066	30.95012
Valid N (listwise)	35

The least time was taken by 2D at 19.77 seconds while the highest was 3D non-dominant monocular that took 53.11 seconds. It also noteworthy in the standard deviation from them mean in the results that were released where they varied as much as 31 seconds for the case of 3D non-dominant monocular time. The experiment where the participants passed a hoop with 2D binocular time also had the least standard deviation, meaning the variations were least in this case compared to the one case of 3D non-dominant.

A look at the results also indicates that the errors were made in the experiment were least in 2D binocular vision while the highest were in 3D non-dominant monocular vision. The results parallel the time for completion on a hoop and buzz wire above. The results of the standard deviation also the same as above performance where they were first and last respectively.

 

Descriptive Statistics: 2D
Vision	N	Mean	Std. Deviation
2D Binocular Errors	35	4.23	3.291
2D Dom Eye Monocular Errors	35	13.80	8.878
2D Non Dom Monocular Errors	35	13.80	6.799
Mean	35	10.61

 

Descriptive Statistics: 3D
Vision	N	Mean	Std. Deviation
3D Binocular Errors	35	10.40	6.792
3D Dom Eye Monocular Errors	35	23.43	12.272
3D Non Dom Monocular Errors	35	24.37	13.068
Valid N (listwise)	35	19.40

 

It is possible to assume that 2D binocular vision that took the shortest time and made least number of errors is better compared to the rest such as 3D monocular vision where number of errors were many at 13 and time taken almost three times that of 2D binocular vision. Using the time and number of errors made, it is possible to state the most advantageous position of doing the experiment where in this case, 2D binocular enabled faster completion with least mistakes made. In general, it can be seen that it was faster to complete the experiment under 2D compared to 3D in all cases.

 

  

Time and errors made are corresponding as shown in the table below:

Vision	N	Time (Mean)	Errors (Mean)
2D Binocular Time	35	19.7697	4.23
2D Dom Eye Monocular Time	35	38.0434	13.8
2D Non Dom Monocular Time	35	39.6809	13.8
3D Binocular Time	35	28.8223	6.792
3D Dom Eye Monocular Time	35	50.7986	12.272
3D Non Dom Monocular Time	35	53.1066	13.068

 These are represented below in the graph as indicated:

There seems to be a link between the vision under which the hoop was used and number errors that were made in it. This relationship can be used to predict the number of errors made and time take to complete the buzz wire experiment.

 

The bar graph below indicates the time and number of errors made for each vision that was use. There are corresponding errors made in 2D binocular time and 3D binocular time taken in the buzz experiment. While being the least in the time taken and errors made in corresponding vision, the other two, 2D dominant monocular time eye and 2D non-dominant are close, much as 3D dominant eye and 3D non-dominant eye monocular time are.

 

 

Error graph

According to the findings below, 2D binocular time has lower mean time of 19.77s and varying at standard error of the mean of ±1. 3D binocular varied at around 28.82 seconds and a std. error of the mean of ±1. 

Monocular and binocular vision were compared within categories of binocular vision and dominant vision. Binocular vision had least completion time in both cases of 2D and 3D. For 2D, binocular vision had mean time of 19.77s while dominant monocular time was 28.82s. For 3D, binocular time had a mean of 38.04s while monocular time for this was 50.80s.

To test whether the difference between time taken for 2D binocular and 3D binocular time, Anova test was carried out. The null hypothesis stated that there is no difference between the two viewing condition. This was rejected at 0.05 confidence interval significance as the value was less than the 0.05 level that was used. This indicated that there is enough evidence to indicate that time taken to complete the buzz wire experiment was higher than for binocular 3D compared to 2D binocular. The F test was also large, indicating that the model that was used was appropriate for this experiment.

 

ANOVA
Buzz time taken
	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	1434.108	1	1434.108	11.847	.001
Within Groups	8231.509	68	121.052
Total	9665.617	69

 

 

 

The same test was carried out for binocular 2D and monocular 2 D, two viewing conditions that were largely related. The results are as below. The results indicated that there is a significant difference between the two viewing conditions of monocular and binocular. The null hypothesis that stated that there is no difference is rejected at significance level of 0.05.

ANOVA
Completion time
	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	5843.751	1	5843.751	14.569	.000
Within Groups	27275.241	68	401.106
Total	33118.992	69

 

The same results as above were obtained when binocular 3D and monocular 3D. The null hypothesis was rejected at 0.05 level of significance, just like the other two that were seen above.

 

ANOVA
Completion time
	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	8451.750	1	8451.750	17.958	.000
Within Groups	32002.713	68	470.628
Total	40454.463	69

 

 Discussion

The aim of the experiment was to assess whether binocular time offered any advantage to the viewer. The results indicated that participants that used binocular had a better vision compared to those of monocular vision. There are possibly a number of reasons what this was so and as noted by various researchers. Doing a buzz wire experiment required one to be keen on where to pass the hoop around the wire. The results confirmed conclusion of Bulson et al. (2016) who noted that binocular vision offered better results in short ranges. Besides, it confirmed the findings by Shneor and Hochstein (2006) who noted that dominant eye was better at processing vision compared to non-dominant eye. This might be the reason time for completion was much lower for dominant eye compared to non-dominant eye. This advantage might also be related to the findings of Shneor and Hochstein (2006) who noted that binocular vision was associated with better reading compared to monocular vision.

The differences between the two, monocular and binocular vision were also assessed and found to be significant. This was as per the findings by Schwarz et al.  (2014), and who added that binocular vision had an advantage. The advantage was also supported by condition of light where binocular vision again had an advantage over monocular vision.

Conclusion

The aim of the experiment was to assess whether binocular vision offered any advantage to the viewers. The experiment confirmed findings from various researchers that binocular vision offered advantage over monocular vision, where time taken was significantly shorter, besides, 2D vision was associated with shorter completion time compared to 3D. thus, there are advantages associated with binocular vision and 2D compared to 3D due to wide angle of viewing, target of the object and under light conditions.

 

References

Bhola, R., 2006. Rahul Bhola. [Online]
Available at: http://webeye.ophth.uiowa.edu/eyeforum/tutorials/Bhola-BinocularVision.htm
[Accessed 1 January 2017].

Bulson, R., Ciuffreda, K. J. & Ludlam, D. P., 2016. Effect of binocular Vs monocular viewring on golf putting accuracy. Advanced Vision Therapy Centre.

Gaertner, C. et al., 2013. Benefit of Bi-Ocular Visual Stimulation for Postural Control in Children with Strabismus. Genetics and Genomics Research.

Hayashi, K., Ogawa, S., Manabe, S.-i. & Hirata, A., 2015. Visual outcomes in eyes with a distance-dominant diffractive multifocal intraocular lens with low near addition power. Br J Ophthalmol, Volume 99, pp. 1466-1470.

Holten, V., Stuit, S. M., Verstraten, F. A. & Smag, M. J. v. d., 2016. Grouping of optic flow stimuli during binocular rivalry is driven by monocular information. Vision Research, 127(1), p. 84–91.

Isotalo, E. et al., 2004. Monocular versus binocular vision in postural control. International Journal of Auris Nasus Larnyx, 31(1), p. 11–17.

Jainta, S., Nikolova, M. & Liversedge, S. P., 2017. Does text contrast mediate binocular advantages in reading?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(1), pp. 55-68..

Johansson, J., Pansell, T., Ygge, J. & Seimyr, G. Ö., 2014. Monocular and binocular reading performance in subjects with normal binocular vision. Clinical and Experimental Optometry, 97(4), p. 341–348.

Johansson, J., Seimyr, G. Ö. & Pansell, T., 2015. Eye dominance in binocular viewing conditions. Journal of Vision, 15(21).

Martinho III, A., Burns, Z. T., Bayern, A. M. v. & Kacelnik, A., 2014. Monocular Tool Control, Eye Dominance, and Laterality in New Caledonian Crows. Current Biology, 24(24), pp. 2930-2934.

Opper, J. K. & Volbrecht, V. J., 2017. Binocular vs. monocular hue perception. Vision Research, Volume 131, pp. 1-15.

Roger W. Li, K. S. et al., 2016. Monocular blur alters the tuning characteristics of stereopsis for spatial frequency and size. Royal Society Publishing.

Schwarz, C. et al., 2014. Binocular visual acuity for the correction of spherical aberration in polychromatic and monochromatic light. Journal of Vision, 14(8).

Schwarz, C., Manzanera, S. & Artal, P., 2014. Binocular visual performance with aberration correction as a function of light level. Journal of Vision, 14(14), pp. 1-11.

Shneor, E. & Hochstein, S., 2006. Eye dominance effects in feature search. Eye dominance effects in feature search, 46(25), pp. 4258-4269.