Area summation and masking

At detection threshold, sensitivity improves as the area of a test grating increases, but not when the test is placed on a pedestal and the task becomes contrast discrimination (G. E. Legge, & J. M. Foley, 1980). This study asks whether the abolition of area summation is specific to the situation where mask and test stimuli have the same spatial frequency and orientation ("within-channel" masking) or is more general, also occurring when mask and test stimuli are very different ("cross-channel" masking). Threshold versus contrast masking functions were measured where the test and mask were either both small (SS), both large (LL), or small and large, respectively (SL). For within-channel masking, facilitation and area summation were found at low mask contrasts, but the results for SS and LL converged at intermediate contrasts and above, replicating Legge and Foley (1980). For all three observers, less facilitation was found for SL than for SS. For cross-channel masking, area summation occurred across the entire masking function and results for SS and SL were identical. The results for the entire data set were well fit by an extended version of a contrast masking model (J. M. Foley, 1994) in which the weights of excitatory and suppressive surround terms were free parameters. I conclude that (i) there is no empirical abolition of area summation for cross-channel masking, (ii) within-channel area summation can be abolished empirically without being disabled in the model, (iii) observers are able to restrict the area of spatial integration, but not suppression, (iv) extending a cross-channel mask to the surround has no effect on contrast detection, and (v) there is a formal similarity between area summation and contrast adaptation. © 2004 ARVO

Debazzled:a blue and black ship, dressed to deceive

The blue and black dress that “melted the Internet” is thought to have done so because its perceived color depended on people using different prior assumptions about discounting the illuminant. However, this is not the first monochromatic object to have confused the public. For a brief period during WWI, RMS Mauretania was dressed in (dazzle) camouflage shades of blue and black/grey, yet she is sometimes depicted by artists, modelers, and historians in a much showier dress of red, blue, yellow, green, and black. I raise the possibility that this originates from a case of public deception deriving from the momentary misperception of a playful artist who neglected to discount the illuminant, propagating the most (perhaps only) successful application of dazzle camouflage known

Measuring the spatial extent of texture pooling using reverse correlation

The local image representation produced by early stages of visual analysis is uninformative regarding spatially extensive textures and surfaces. We know little about the cortical algorithm used to combine local information over space, and still less about the area over which it can operate. But such operations are vital to support perception of real-world objects and scenes. Here, we deploy a novel reverse-correlation technique to measure the extent of spatial pooling for target regions of different areas placed either in the central visual field, or more peripherally. Stimuli were large arrays of micropatterns, with their contrasts perturbed individually on an interval-by-interval basis. By comparing trial-by-trial observer responses with the predictions of computational models, we show that substantial regions (up to 13 carrier cycles) of a stimulus can be monitored in parallel by summing contrast over area. This summing strategy is very different from the more widely assumed signal selection strategy (a MAX operation), and suggests that neural mechanisms representing extensive visual textures can be recruited by attention. We also demonstrate that template resolution is much less precise in the parafovea than in the fovea, consistent with recent accounts of crowding

Fourth-root summation of contrast over area:no end in sight when spatially inhomogeneous sensitivity is compensated by a witch's hat

Measurements of area summation for luminance-modulated stimuli are typically confounded by variations in sensitivity across the retina. Recently we conducted a detailed analysis of sensitivity across the visual field (Baldwin et al, 2012) and found it to be well-described by a bilinear “witch’s hat” function: sensitivity declines rapidly over the first 8 cycles or so, more gently thereafter. Here we multiplied luminance-modulated stimuli (4 c/deg gratings and “Swiss cheeses”) by the inverse of the witch’s hat function to compensate for the inhomogeneity. This revealed summation functions that were straight lines (on double log axes) with a slope of -1/4 extending to ≥33 cycles, demonstrating fourth-root summation of contrast over a wider area than has previously been reported for the central retina. Fourth-root summation is typically attributed to probability summation, but recent studies have rejected that interpretation in favour of a noisy energy model that performs local square-law transduction of the signal, adds noise at each location of the target and then sums over signal area. Modelling shows our results to be consistent with a wide field application of such a contrast integrator. We reject a probability summation model, a quadratic model and a matched template model of our results under the assumptions of signal detection theory. We also reject the high threshold theory of contrast detection under the assumption of probability summation over area

Contrast summation across eyes and space is revealed along the entire dipper function by a "Swiss cheese" stimulus.

Previous contrast discrimination experiments have shown that luminance contrast is summed across ocular (T. S. Meese, M. A. Georgeson, & D. H. Baker, 2006) and spatial (T. S. Meese & R. J. Summers, 2007) dimensions at threshold and above. However, is this process sufficiently general to operate across the conjunction of eyes and space? Here we used a "Swiss cheese" stimulus where the blurred "holes" in sine-wave carriers were of equal area to the blurred target ("cheese") regions. The locations of the target regions in the monocular image pairs were interdigitated across eyes such that their binocular sum was a uniform grating. When pedestal contrasts were above threshold, the monocular neural images contained strong evidence that the high-contrast regions in the two eyes did not overlap. Nevertheless, sensitivity to dual contrast increments (i.e., to contrast increments in different locations in the two eyes) was a factor of ∼1.7 greater than to single increments (i.e., increments in a single eye), comparable with conventional binocular summation. This provides evidence for a contiguous area summation process that operates at all contrasts and is influenced little, if at all, by eye of origin. A three-stage model of contrast gain control fitted the results and possessed the properties of ocularity invariance and area invariance owing to its cascade of normalization stages. The implications for a population code for pattern size are discussed

Grating and plaid masks indicate linear summation in a contrast gain pool

In human vision, the response to luminance contrast at each small region in the image is controlled by a more global process where suppressive signals are pooled over spatial frequency and orientation bands. But what rules govern summation among stimulus components within the suppressive pool? We addressed this question by extending a pedestal plus pattern mask paradigm to use a stimulus with up to three mask components: a vertical 1 c/deg pedestal, plus pattern masks made from either a grating (orientation = -45°) or a plaid (orientation = ±45°), with component spatial frequency of 3 c/deg. The overall contrast of both types of pattern mask was fixed at 20% (i.e., plaid component contrasts were 10%). We found that both of these masks transformed conventional dipper functions (threshold vs. pedestal contrast with no pattern mask) in exactly the same way: The dipper region was raised and shifted to the right, but the dipper handles superimposed. This equivalence of the two pattern masks indicates that contrast summation between the plaid components was perfectly linear prior to the masking stage. Furthermore, the pattern masks did not drive the detecting mechanism above its detection threshold because they did not abolish facilitation by the pedestal (Foley, 1994). Therefore, the pattern masking could not be attributed to within-channel masking, suggesting that linear summation of contrast signals takes place within a suppressive contrast gain pool. We present a quantitative model of the effects and discuss the implications for neurophysiological models of the process. © 2004 ARVO

Low spatial frequencies are suppressively masked across spatial scale, orientation, field position, and eye of origin

Masking is said to occur when a mask stimulus interferes with the visibility of a target (test) stimulus. One widely held view of this process supposes interactions between mask and test mechanisms (cross-channel masking), and explicit models (e.g., J. M. Foley, 1994) have proposed that the interactions are inhibitory. Unlike a within-channel model, where masking involves the combination of mask and test stimulus within a single mechanism, this cross-channel inhibitory model predicts that the mask should attenuate the perceived contrast of a test stimulus. Another possibility is that masking is due to an increase in noise, in which case, perception of contrast should be unaffected once the signal exceeds detection threshold. We use circular patches and annuli of sine-wave grating in contrast detection and contrast matching experiments to test these hypotheses and investigate interactions across spatial frequency, orientation, field position, and eye of origin. In both types of experiments we found substantial effects of masking that can occur over a factor of 3 in spatial frequency, 45° in orientation, across different field positions and between different eyes. We found the effects to be greatest at the lowest test spatial frequency we used (0.46 c/deg), and when the mask and test differed in all four dimensions simultaneously. This is surprising in light of previous work where it was concluded that suppression from the surround was strictly monocular (C. Chubb, G. Sperling, & J. A. Solomon, 1989). The results confirm that above detection threshold, cross-channel masking involves contrast suppression and not (purely) mask-induced noise. We conclude that cross-channel masking can be a powerful phenomenon, particularly at low test spatial frequencies and when mask and test are presented to different eyes. © 2004 ARVO

Regarding the benefit of zero-dimensional noise

Baker and Meese (2012) (B&M) provided an empirically driven criticism of the use of two-dimensional (2D) pixel noise in equivalent noise (EN) experiments. Their main objection was that in addition to injecting variability into the contrast detecting mechanisms, 2D noise also invokes gain control processes from a widely tuned contrast gain pool (e.g., Foley, 1994). B&M also developed a zero-dimensional (0D) noise paradigm in which all of the variance is concentrated in the mechanisms involved in the detection process. They showed that this form of noise conformed much more closely to expectations than did a 2D variant

Optic flow in human vision: MEG reveals a foveo-fugal bias in V1, specialization for spiral space in hMSTs, and global motion sensitivity in the IPS

Abstract We recorded MEG responses from 17 participants viewing random-dot patterns simulating global optic flow components (expansion, contraction, rotation, deformation, and translation) and a random motion control condition. Theta-band (3–7 Hz), MEG signal power was greater for expansion than the other optic flow components in a region concentrated along the calcarine sulcus, indicating an ecologically valid, foveo-fugal bias for unidirectional motion sensors in V1. When the responses to the optic flow components were combined, a decrease in MEG beta-band (17–23 Hz) power was found in regions extending beyond the calcarine sulcus to the posterior parietal lobe (inferior to IPS), indicating the importance of structured motion in this region. However, only one cortical area, within or near the V5/hMT+ complex, responded to all three spiral-space components (expansion, contraction, and rotation) and showed no selectivity for global translation or deformation: we term this area hMSTs. This is the first demonstration of an exclusive region for spiral space in the human brain and suggests a functional role better suited to preliminary analysis of ego-motion than surface pose, which would involve deformation. We also observed that the rotation condition activated the cerebellum, suggesting its involvement in visually mediated control of postural adjustment