Interocular suppression and contrast gain control in human vision

The human visual system combines contrast information from the two eyes to produce a single cyclopean representation of the external world. This task requires both summation of congruent images and inhibition of incongruent images across the eyes. These processes were explored psychophysically using narrowband sinusoidal grating stimuli. Initial experiments focussed on binocular interactions within a single detecting mechanism, using contrast discrimination and contrast matching tasks. Consistent with previous findings, dichoptic presentation produced greater masking than monocular or binocular presentation. Four computational models were compared, two of which performed well on all data sets. Suppression between mechanisms was then investigated, using orthogonal and oblique stimuli. Two distinct suppressive pathways were identified, corresponding to monocular and dichoptic presentation. Both pathways impact prior to binocular summation of signals, and differ in their strengths, tuning, and response to adaptation, consistent with recent single-cell findings in cat. Strikingly, the magnitude of dichoptic masking was found to be spatiotemporally scale invariant, whereas monocular masking was dependent on stimulus speed. Interocular suppression was further explored using a novel manipulation, whereby stimuli were presented in dichoptic antiphase. Consistent with the predictions of a computational model, this produced weaker masking than in-phase presentation. This allowed the bandwidths of suppression to be measured without the complicating factor of additive combination of mask and test. Finally, contrast vision in strabismic amblyopia was investigated. Although amblyopes are generally believed to have impaired binocular vision, binocular summation was shown to be intact when stimuli were normalized for interocular sensitivity differences. An alternative account of amblyopia was developed, in which signals in the affected eye are subject to attenuation and additive noise prior to binocular combination

A common rule for integration and suppression of luminance contrast across eyes, space, time, and pattern

Visual perception begins by dissecting the retinal image into millions of small patches for local analyses by local receptive fields. However, image structures extend well beyond these receptive fields and so further processes must be involved in sewing the image fragments back together to derive representations of higher order (more global) structures. To investigate the integration process, we also need to understand the opposite process of suppression. To investigate both processes together, we measured triplets of dipper functions for targets and pedestals involving interdigitated stimulus pairs (A, B). Previous work has shown that summation and suppression operate over the full contrast range for the domains of ocularity and space. Here, we extend that work to include orientation and time domains. Temporal stimuli were 15-Hz counter-phase sine-wave gratings, where A and B were the positive and negative phases of the oscillation, respectively. For orientation, we used orthogonally oriented contrast patches (A, B) whose sum was an isotropic difference of Gaussians. Results from all four domains could be understood within a common framework in which summation operates separately within the numerator and denominator of a contrast gain control equation. This simple arrangement of summation and counter-suppression achieves integration of various stimulus attributes without distorting the underlying contrast code

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

Contrast integration over area is extensive: a three-stage model of spatial summation

Classical studies of area summation measure contrast detection thresholds as a function of grating diameter. Unfortunately, (i) this approach is compromised by retinal inhomogeneity and (ii) it potentially confounds summation of signal with summation of internal noise. The Swiss cheese stimulus of T. S. Meese and R. J. Summers (2007) and the closely related Battenberg stimulus of T. S. Meese (2010) were designed to avoid these problems by keeping target diameter constant and modulating interdigitated checks of first-order carrier contrast within the stimulus region. This approach has revealed a contrast integration process with greater potency than the classical model of spatial probability summation. Here, we used Swiss cheese stimuli to investigate the spatial limits of contrast integration over a range of carrier frequencies (1–16 c/deg) and raised plaid modulator frequencies (0.25–32 cycles/check). Subthreshold summation for interdigitated carrier pairs remained strong (~4 to 6 dB) up to 4 to 8 cycles/check. Our computational analysis of these results implied linear signal combination (following square-law transduction) over either (i) 12 carrier cycles or more or (ii) 1.27 deg or more. Our model has three stages of summation: short-range summation within linear receptive fields, medium-range integration to compute contrast energy for multiple patches of the image, and long-range pooling of the contrast integrators by probability summation. Our analysis legitimizes the inclusion of widespread integration of signal (and noise) within hierarchical image processing models. It also confirms the individual differences in the spatial extent of integration that emerge from our approach

Measuring nonlinear signal combination using EEG

Relatively little is known about the processes, both linear and nonlinear, by which signals are combined beyond V1. By presenting two stimulus components simultaneously, flickering at different temporal frequencies (frequency tagging) while measuring steady-state visual evoked potentials, we can assess responses to the individual components, including direct measurements of suppression on each other, and various nonlinear responses to their combination found at intermodulation frequencies. The result is a rather rich dataset of frequencies at which responses can be found. We presented pairs of sinusoidal gratings at different temporal frequencies, forming plaid patterns that were "coherent" (looking like a checkerboard) and "noncoherent" (looking like a pair of transparently overlaid gratings), and found clear intermodulation responses to compound stimuli, indicating nonlinear summation. This might have been attributed to cross-orientation suppression except that the pattern of intermodulation responses differed for coherent and noncoherent patterns, whereas the effects of suppression (measured at the component frequencies) did not. A two-stage model of nonlinear summation involving conjunction detection with a logical AND gate described the data well, capturing the difference between coherent and noncoherent plaids over a wide array of possible response frequencies. Multistimulus frequency-tagged EEG in combination with computational modeling may be a very valuable tool in studying the conjunction of these signals. In the current study the results suggest a second-order mechanism responding selectively to coherent plaid patterns

Paradoxical psychometric functions ("swan functions") are explained by dilution masking in four stimulus dimensions

The visual system dissects the retinal image into millions of local analyses along numerous visual dimensions. However, our perceptions of the world are not fragmentary, so further processes must be involved in stitching it all back together. Simply summing up the responses would not work because this would convey an increase in image contrast with an increase in the number of mechanisms stimulated. Here, we consider a generic model of signal combination and counter-suppression designed to address this problem. The model is derived and tested for simple stimulus pairings (e.g. A + B), but is readily extended over multiple analysers. The model can account for nonlinear contrast transduction, dilution masking, and signal combination at threshold and above. It also predicts nonmonotonic psychometric functions where sensitivity to signal A in the presence of pedestal B first declines with increasing signal strength (paradoxically dropping below 50% correct in two-interval forced choice), but then rises back up again, producing a contour that follows the wings and neck of a swan. We looked for and found these "swan" functions in four different stimulus dimensions (ocularity, space, orientation, and time), providing some support for our proposal

Area summation of first- and second-order modulations of luminance

To extend our understanding of the early visual hierarchy, we investigated the long-range integration of first- and second-order signals in spatial vision. In our first experiment we performed a conventional area summation experiment where we varied the diameter of (a) luminance-modulated (LM) noise and (b) contrastmodulated (CM) noise. Results from the LM condition replicated previous findings with sine-wave gratings in the absence of noise, consistent with long-range integration of signal contrast over space. For CM, the summation function was much shallower than for LM suggesting, at first glance, that the signal integration process was spatially less extensive than for LM. However, an alternative possibility was that the high spatial frequency noise carrier for the CM signal was attenuated by peripheral retina (or cortex), thereby impeding our ability to observe area summation of CM in the conventional way. To test this, we developed the ''Swiss cheese'' stimulus of Meese and Summers (2007) in which signal area can be varied without changing the stimulus diameter, providing some protection against inhomogeneity of the retinal field. Using this technique and a two-component subthreshold summation paradigm we found that (a) CM is spatially integrated over at least five stimulus cycles (possibly more), (b) spatial integration follows square-law signal transduction for both LM and CM and (c) the summing device integrates over spatially-interdigitated LM and CM signals when they are co-oriented, but not when crossoriented. The spatial pooling mechanism that we have identified would be a good candidate component for amodule involved in representing visual textures, including their spatial extent

Visual consciousness: the binocular rivalry explosion

A new behavioural technique solves a long-standing puzzle of binocular suppression, demonstrating that adapting reciprocal inhibition governs visual sensitivity, and raising key questions about visual awareness