Errata in Read & Cumming (2005) “The stroboscopic Pulfrich effect is not evidence for the joint encoding of motion and depth. “, Journal of Vision 5: 417-434

25th July 2007
Morgan & Tyler (1995), “Mechanisms for dynamic stereomotion respond selectively to horizontal velocity components”, is wrongly cited as appearing in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 262(1365), 371-376. The correct journal is Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B. The volume and page numbers are correct as stated.

18th November 2009
p. 426, section headed “Stereoacuity”. The text discusses the behaviour of stereoacuity when it means stereo thresholds. That is,
on p. 426 col. 1: “Thus, our explanation suggests that stereoacuity should increase with interocular delay in the stroboscopic Pulfrich effect ”
should read: “Thus, our explanation suggests that stereo thresholds should increase with interocular delay in the stroboscopic Pulfrich effect ”
or equivalently: “Thus, our explanation suggests that stereoacuity should decrease with interocular delay in the stroboscopic Pulfrich effect ”
and on p. 426 col. 2 “Stereoacuity may increase with the inter-flash interval in these schemes, but it need not increase as a function of interocular delay.”
should read “Stereo threshold may increase with the inter-flash interval in these schemes, but it need not increase as a function of interocular delay.”
or equivalently “Stereoacuity may decrease with the inter-flash interval in these schemes, but it need not decrease as a function of interocular delay.”