This issue of Interface Focus is a collection of papers arising out of a Royal Society Discussion meeting entitled ‘Understanding images in biological and computer vision’ held at Carlton Terrace on the 19th and 20th February, 2018. There is a strong tradition of inter-disciplinarity in the study of visual perception and visual cognition. Many of the great natural scientists including Newton [1], Young [2] and Maxwell (see [3]) were intrigued by the relationship between light, surfaces and perceived colour considering both physical and perceptual processes. Brewster [4] invented both the lenticular stereoscope and the binocular camera but also studied the perception of shape-from-shading. More recently, Marr's [5] description of visual perception as an information processing problem led to great advances in our understanding of both biological and computer vision: both the computer vision and biological vision communities have a Marr medal. The recent successes of deep neural networks in classifying the images that we see and the fMRI images that reveal the activity in our brains during the act of seeing are both intriguing. The links between machine vision systems and biology may at sometimes be weak but the similarity of some of the operations is nonetheless striking [6]. This two-day meeting brought together researchers from the fields of biological and computer vision, robotics, neuroscience, computer science and psychology to discuss the most recent developments in the field. The meeting was divided into four themes: vision for action, visual appearance, vision for recognition and machine learning.

Objectives: To determine the impact of adherence to spectacle wear on visual acuity (VA) and developing literacy following vision screening at age 4–5 years. Design: Longitudinal study nested within the Born in Bradford birth cohort. Setting and participants: Observation of 944 children: 432 had failed vision screening and were referred (treatment group) and 512 randomly selected (comparison group) who had passed (<0.20 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) in both eyes). Spectacle wear was observed in school for 2 years following screening and classified as adherent (wearing spectacles at each assessment) or non-adherent. Main outcome measures: Annual measures of VA using a crowded logMAR test. Literacy was measured by Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised subtest: letter identification. Results: The VA of all children improved with increasing age, −0.009 log units per month (95% CI −0.011 to −0.007) (worse eye). The VA of the adherent group improved significantly more than the comparison group, by an additional −0.008 log units per month (95% CI −0.009 to −0.007) (worse eye) and −0.004 log units per month (95% CI −0.005 to −0.003) in the better eye. Literacy was associated with the VA, letter identification (ID) reduced by −0.9 (95% CI −1.15 to −0.64) for every one line (0.10 logMAR) fall in VA (better eye). This association remained after adjustment for socioeconomic and demographic factors (−0.33, 95% CI −0.54 to −0.12). The adherent group consistently demonstrated higher letter-ID scores compared with the non-adherent group, with the greatest effect size (0.11) in year 3. Conclusions: Early literacy is associated with the level of VA; children who adhere to spectacle wear improve their VA and also have the potential to improve literacy. Our results suggest failure to adhere to spectacle wear has implications for the child’s vision and education.

Purpose: To determine presenting visual acuity levels and explore the factors associated with failing vision screening in a multi-ethnic population of UK children aged 4–5 years. Methods: Visual acuity (VA) using the logMAR Crowded Test was measured in 16,541 children in a population-based vision screening programme. Referral for cycloplegic examination was based on national recommendations (>0.20logMAR in one or both eyes). Presenting visual impairment (PVI) was defined as VA >0.3logMAR in the better eye. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association of ethnicity, maternal, and early-life factors with failing vision screening and PVI in participants of the Born in Bradford birth cohort. Results: In total, 2467/16,541 (15%) failed vision screening, 732 (4.4%) had PVI. Children of Pakistani (OR: 2.49; 95% CI: 1.74–3.60) and other ethnicities (OR: 2.00; 95% CI: 1.28–3.12) showed increased odds of PVI compared to white children. Children born to older mothers (OR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.19–2.24) and of low birth weight (OR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.00–2.34) also showed increased odds. Follow-up results were available for 1068 (43.3%) children, 993 (93%) were true positives; 932 (94%) of these had significant refractive error. Astigmatism (>1DC) (44%) was more common in children of Pakistani ethnicity and hypermetropia (>3.0DS) (27%) in white children (Fisher’s exact, p < 0.001). Conclusions: A high prevalence of PVI is reported. Failing vision screening and PVI were highly associated with ethnicity. The positive predictive value of the vision screening programme was good, with only 7% of children followed up confirmed as false positives.

Purpose: Two binocular sources of information serve motion-in-depth (MID) perception: changes in disparity over time (CD), and interocular velocity differences (IOVD). While CD requires the computation of small spatial disparities, IOVD could be computed from a much lower-resolution signal. IOVD signals therefore might still be available under conditions of binocular vision impairment (BVI) with limited or no stereopsis, e.g. amblyopia. Methods: Sensitivity to CD and IOVD was measured in adults who had undergone therapy to correct optical misalignment or amblyopia in childhood (n=16), as well as normal vision controls with good stereoacuity (n=8). Observers discriminated the interval containing a smoothly-oscillating MID “test” stimulus from a “control” stimulus in a two-interval forced choice (2IFC) paradigm. Results: Of the BVI observers with no static stereoacuity (n=9), one displayed evidence for sensitivity to IOVD only, while there was otherwise no sensitivity for either CD or IOVD in the group. Generally, BVI observers with measurable stereoacuity (n=7) displayed a pattern resembling the control group: showing a similar sensitivity for both cues. A neutral-density (ND) filter placed in front of the fixing eye in a subset of BVI observers did not improve performance. Conclusions: In one BVI observer there was preserved sensitivity to IOVD but not CD, though overall only those BVI observers with at least gross stereopsis were able to detect disparity-based or velocity-based cues to MID. The results imply that these logically distinct information sources are somehow coupled, and in some cases BVI observers with no stereopsis may still retain sensitivity to IOVD.

Motion-in-depth can be detected by using two different types of binocular cues: change of disparity (CD) and inter-ocular velocity differences (IOVD). To investigate the underlying detection mechanisms, stimuli can be constructed that isolate these cues or contain both (FULL cue). Two different methods to isolate the IOVD cue can be employed: anti-correlated (aIOVD) and de-correlated (dIOVD) motion signals. While both types of stimuli have been used in studies investigating the perception of motion-in-depth, for the first time, we explore whether both stimuli isolate the same mechanism and how they differ in their relative efficacy. Here, we set out to directly compare aIOVD and dIOVD sensitivity by measuring motion coherence thresholds. In accordance with previous results by Czuba et al. (2010), we found that motion coherence thresholds were similar for aIOVD and FULL cue stimuli for most participants. Thresholds for dIOVD stimuli, however, differed consistently from thresholds for the two other cues, suggesting that aIOVD and dIOVD stimuli could be driving different visual mechanisms.