Stuart J. Gilson

East Asia has experienced an excessive increase in myopia in the past decades with more than 80% of the younger generation now affected. Environmental and genetic factors are both assumed to contribute in the development of refractive errors, but the etiology is unknown. The environmental factor argued to be of greatest importance in preventing myopia is high levels of daylight exposure. If true, myopia prevalence would be higher in adolescents living in high latitude countries with fewer daylight hours in the autumn-winter. We examined the prevalence of refractive errors in a representative sample of 16-19-year-old Norwegian Caucasians (n = 393, 41.2% males) in a representative region of Norway (60° latitude North). At this latitude, autumn-winter is 50 days longer than summer. Using gold-standard methods of cycloplegic autorefraction and ocular biometry, the overall prevalence of myopia [spherical equivalent refraction (SER) ≤-0.50 D] was 13%, considerably lower than in East Asians. Hyperopia (SER ≥ + 0.50 D), astigmatism (≥1.00 DC) and anisometropia (≥1.00 D) were found in 57%, 9% and 4%. Norwegian adolescents seem to defy the world-wide trend of increasing myopia. This suggests that there is a need to explore why daylight exposure during a relatively short summer outweighs that of the longer autumn-winter.

Visually recognizing objects at different orientations and distances has been assumed to depend either on extracting from the retinal image a viewpoint-invariant, typically three-dimensional (3D) structure, such as object parts, or on mentally transforming two-dimensional (2D) views. To test how these processes might interact with each other, an experiment was performed in which observers discriminated images of novel, computer-generated, 3D objects, differing by rotations in 3D space and in the number of parts (in principle, a viewpoint-invariant, 'non-accidental' property) or in the curvature, length or angle of join of their parts (in principle, each a viewpoint-dependent, metric property), such that the discriminatory cue varied along a common physical scale. Although differences in the number of parts were more readily discriminated than differences in metric properties, they showed almost exactly the same orientation dependence. Overall, visual performance proved remarkably lawful: for both long (2 s) and short (100 ms) display durations, it could be summarized by a simple, compact equation with one term representing generalized viewpoint-invariant parts-based processing of 3D object structure, including metric structure, and another term representing structure-invariant processing of 2D views. Object discriminability was determined by summing signals from these two independent processes.

Cue combination rules have often been applied to the perception of surface shape but not to judgements of object location. Here, we used immersive virtual reality to explore the relationship between different cues to distance. Participants viewed a virtual scene and judged the change in distance of an object presented in two intervals, where the scene changed in size between intervals (by a factor of between 0.25 and 4). We measured thresholds for detecting a change in object distance when there were only 'physical' (stereo and motion parallax) or 'texture-based' cues (independent of the scale of the scene) and used these to predict biases in a distance matching task. Under a range of conditions, in which the viewing distance and position of the target relative to other objects was varied, the ratio of 'physical' to 'texture-based' thresholds was a good predictor of biases in the distance matching task. The cue combination approach, which successfully accounts for our data, relies on quite different principles from those underlying traditional models of 3D reconstruction.