P3D Re: Stereo vergence?

[Gabriel Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I wrote,
>Vergence is a monocular depth cue!

And then after pondering this wonderful ;-) subject  I posted,
>Now isn't vergence a "form" of stereo vision (albeit not
>processing binocular visual information), since we require
>"two" eyes (or don't we) to converge the eyes?

Abram Klooswyk replies,
>Vergence is a binocular process. By definition convergence
>is "the occurrence of two or more things coming together"
>(Webster), divergence the opposite. Vergence is the term
>to include both, it is used in texts on vision physiology.
>(Let's skip uni-ocular vergence movements as irrelevant
>to this discussion)
>Vergence certainly isn't a *monocular* depth cue.

I stand corrected! :-) Yes, your quite right and it started
to bug me after I posted, "vergence is a monocular depth cue."
That is why I posted the follow up message. I think most
people regard depth cues in general as being either monocular or
binocular. This of course is an oversimplification which can
lead to erroneous statements! :-)
 
When referring to binocular depth cues, that is normally
understood to mean stereopsis which involves binocular "vision".
"Vision" has to be stressed in this case because vergence is
an oculmotor depth cue and certainly a binocular process, albeit
NOT a "visual" binocular process. Thus, I should have stated
vergence is not a stereopsis process.

>I know that some of the pearls I send to the list become
>the poor victims of neglect :-(.

Not so, they are stored safely in a vault till they are
needed! :-)

>But I did hope that Gabriel Jacobs, who took turns in
>opposing Chris Jones posts (without off-list contacts
>between us), at least might be the other reader of the
>boring post which I wrote in P3d Digest 3575, 01 Nov 1999,
>Re: "Too much depth", on the role of convergence in the
>depth scaling process.

I will have to open up the vault and retrieve it. Thanks!

Gabriel