Abstract
IT SEEMS that Worth1considered fusion essentially as a mental process and made no distinction between the motor part of the fusion (the fusional movements) and the mental process of uniting two uniocular impressions into one single impression. This distinction was clearly indicated by Roelofs,2who also pointed out that binocular vision and fusion are different words to designate the same thing. Binocular vision is fusion, and this fusion should be differentiated into motor fusion (fusional movements) and sensory fusion, or the process of uniting the two retinal images into a unitary perception. The same distinction between motor and sensory fusion was recently stressed by Burian.3The work of Chavasse4has largely contributed to the present concept of binocular vision and fusion as reflexes, or, rather, as conditioned reflexes. This concept has been elaborated most completely along ontogenetic lines by Zeeman.5 When we apply this
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
