Recommended reading

Hi, Wayne,

I am curious why you are recommending reading this particular book, and to whom you are recommending it.

Dave

I had hoped, Wayne, that you might have stated for what specific personal reasons you found the book of value, rather than simply copying the publisher’s expectedly enthusiastic blurb accompanying a non-up-dated facimile reprint of a fifty-year old, yet true classic of definite historical value.
However, considering that any book is a year out-of-date when actually finally published, this landmark work by Julesz is now one year shy of a half century out-of-date. I read it when it was first published and became well informed of the relatively current theories of binocular vision of the time... and was fascinated by Julesz’s development of diagnostic use of random dot stereograms.

But time passes.

This book came out about a decade and a half before the gushing, voluminous, wellspring of new research in vision began in the mid eighties and hundreds upon hundreds of publications on previously disregarded or untouched aspects became available...on such realms as:
binocular vision (which had only superficially been studied...)

binocular depth perception, especially neurological aspects:

visual center neuron recognition and differentiation of horizontal, diagonal, and vertically displaced disparities,

development of neuromuscular control of the extraocular muscles permitting a variety of disjunctive eye movements,

age-related maturation of foveational versatility, as well as age-related degradation of visual capacity and its deleterious effects on depth perception,

And, of course, the burgeoning field of “virtual realism” that has clarified use of many monocular cues to depth as well as such phenomena as the puppet stage effect, cardboard effect, shear effect, keystone and other distortions.

These are a few of the fruits of over four years of exhaustive literature searches and reviews of hundreds upon hundreds of published articles in a variety of professional journals and meeting Proceedings to assure that the book I am writing is as well-informed and up-to-date as possible.

Obviously, the advances and re-writing of the rules of fifty years ago have expectedly, progressed apace...and continue to do so.

Thus, Wayne, to recommend Julesz’s half-century-old book for anything other than its significant historical value makes as much sense as recommending to someone who thinks they are interested in modern molecular evolutionary genetics to read Mendel’s works and Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” and “The Descent of Man”. They are, however, absolutely wonderful for historical perspectives !

Thank heavens for the internet, Google, and visits to assorted medical libraries as means of getting and keeping informed. I recommend them highly!

And now, I’m back to work.

Best regards,Dave