{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017071569271175313, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.684210526315789, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Binocular-Disparity-Dependent Upper—Lower Hemifield Anisotropy and Left—Right Hemifield Isotropy as Revealed by Dynamic Random-Dot Stereograms

Dynamic random-dot stereograms devoid of all monocular depth cues were used to measure the limits of temporal and spatial resolution in the center of the visual field. The temporal durations for detecting a small, briefly presented test square of different binocular disparity than the surround varied as a function of its location and binocular disparity. The test squares presented in the upper hemifield were detectable at consistently shorter durations than those presented in the lower hemifield for a surround disparity which was uncrossed relative to the fixation marker. For crossed surround disparity this preference reversed, resulting in a superiority of the lower hemifield. The anisotropy diminished for zero surround disparity. No such anisotropy was found when left and right visual hemifields were compared. It was also shown that this upper—lower temporal anisotropy (and left—right isotropy) is paralleled by a similar disparity-dependent upper—lower anisotropy (and left—right isotropy) in spatial resolution. Introduction of monocular clues into the stereograms tended to eliminate the anisotropics. This implies that the anisotropics reflect the spatiotemporal properties and distribution of binocular disparity detectors in the human cortex and result in a tilted surface that pivots around the horizontal midline in the space of binocular depth perception.