Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Binocular interaction: contrast matching and contrast discrimination are predicted by the same model

By D.H. Baker, T.S. Meese and M.A. Georgeson


How do signals from the 2 eyes combine and interact? Our recent work has challenged earlier schemes in which monocular contrast signals are subject to square-law transduction followed by summation across eyes and binocular gain control. Much more successful was a new ‘two-stage’ model in which the initial transducer was almost linear and contrast gain control occurred both pre- and post binocular summation. Here we extend that work by: (i) exploring the two-dimensional stimulus space (defined by left- and right-eye contrasts) more thoroughly, and (ii) performing contrast discrimination and contrast matching tasks for the same stimuli. Twenty-five base-stimuli made from 1 c/deg patches of horizontal grating, were defined by the factorial combination of 5 contrasts for the left eye (0.3-32%) with five contrasts for the right eye (0.3-32%). Other than in contrast, the gratings in the two eyes were identical. In a 2IFC discrimination task, the base-stimuli were masks (pedestals), where the contrast increment was presented to one eye only. In a matching task, the base-stimuli were standards to which observers matched the contrast of either a monocular or binocular test grating. In the model, discrimination depends on the local gradient of the observer’s internal contrast-response function, while matching equates the magnitude (rather than gradient) of response to the test and standard. With all model parameters fixed by previous work, the two-stage model successfully predicted both the discrimination and the matching data and was much more successful than linear or quadratic binocular summation models. These results show that performance measures and perception (contrast discrimination and contrast matching) can be understood in the same theoretical framework for binocular contrast vision

Topics: BF
Year: 2007
OAI identifier:
Provided by: e-Prints Soton

Suggested articles


  1. (2006). A gain-control theory of binocular combination, doi
  2. (1965). A simplex method for function minimization, doi
  3. (1974). Binocular brightness combinations: additive and nonadditive aspects, doi
  4. (1984). Binocular contrast summation–I. Detection and discrimination, doi
  5. (1984). Binocular contrast summation–II. Quadratic summation, doi
  6. (2006). Binocular contrast vision at and above threshold, doi
  7. (1998). Binocular cross-orientation suppression in the cat’s striate cortex,
  8. (1981). Binocular interactions in suprathreshold contrast perception, doi
  9. (2005). Binocular summation at contrast threshold: a new look, Perception doi
  10. (2005). Binocular summation, dichoptic masking and contrast gain control, doi
  11. (2004). Binocular summation, interocular suppression and contrast gain control: psychophysical model and data,
  12. (2006). Collinear facilitation is largely uncertainty reduction, doi
  13. (1991). Contrast adaptation and contrast masking in human vision, doi
  14. (1996). Contrast discrimination at high contrasts reveals the influence of local light adaptation on contrast processing, doi
  15. (1981). Contrast discrimination by the human visual system, doi
  16. (1987). Contrast discrimination in noise, doi
  17. (1980). Contrast masking in human vision, doi
  18. (1984). Contrast matching data predicted from contrast increment thresholds, doi
  19. (2000). Contrats gain control in the visual cortex: Monocular versus binocular mechanisms,
  20. (2005). Cross-orientation suppression: monoptic and dichoptic mechanisms are different, doi
  21. (2004). Denoising and contrast constancy, doi
  22. (2004). Dichoptic visual masking reveals that early binocular neurons exhibit weak interocular suppression: implications for binocular vision and visual awareness, doi
  23. (1994). Evidence for separate pathways for color and luminance detection mechanisms, doi
  24. (1994). Human luminance pattern-vision mechanisms: masking experiments require a new model, doi
  25. (2005). Interocular suppression is gated by interocular feature matching, doi
  26. (2005). Intracortical origins of interocular suppression in the visual cortex, doi
  27. (2004). Low spatial frequencies are suppressively masked across spatial scale, orientation, field position, and eye of origin, doi
  28. (1965). Monocular versus binocular visual acuity, doi
  29. (1971). Probit Analysis. doi
  30. (2007). Psychophysical evidence for two routes to suppression before binocular summation of signals in human vision, Neurosci., doi
  31. (2002). Separating the effects of response nonlinearity and internal noise psychophysically, doi
  32. (2006). Sinusoid = light bar + dark bar?, doi
  33. (2005). Size matters, but not for everyone: individual differences for contrast discrimination, doi
  34. T.S.(2004).Gratingandplaid masksindicate linear summationinacontrast gain pool,
  35. (2006). The effect of spatial configuration on surround suppression, doi
  36. (1993). The effects ofadaptation and masking on incremental thresholds for contrast, doi
  37. (1985). Uncertainty explains many aspects of visual contrast detection and discrimination, doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.