Psychophysical evidence for two routes to suppression before binocular summation of signals in human vision

Visual mechanisms in primary visual cortex are suppressed by the superposition of gratings perpendicular to their preferred orientations. A clear picture of this process is needed to (i) inform functional architecture of image-processing models, (ii) identify the pathways available to support binocular rivalry, and (iii) generally advance our understanding of early vision. Here we use monoptic sine-wave gratings and cross-orientation masking (XOM) to reveal two cross-oriented suppressive pathways in humans, both of which occur before full binocular summation of signals. One is a within-eye (ipsiocular) pathway that is spatially broadband, immune to contrast adaptation and has a suppressive weight that tends to decrease with stimulus duration. The other pathway operates between the eyes (interocular), is spatially tuned, desensitizes with contrast adaptation and has a suppressive weight that increases with stimulus duration. When cross-oriented masks are presented to both eyes, masking is enhanced or diminished for conditions in which either ipsiocular or interocular pathways dominate masking, respectively. We propose that ipsiocular suppression precedes the influence of interocular suppression and tentatively associate the two effects with the lateral geniculate nucleus (or retina) and the visual cortex respectively. The interocular route is a good candidate for the initial pathway involved in binocular rivalry and predicts that interocular cross-orientation suppression should be found in cortical cells with predominantly ipsiocular drive

Depth of interocular suppression associated with continuous flash suppression, flash suppression, and binocular rivalry

When conflicting images are presented to the corresponding regions of the two eyes, only one image may be consciously perceived. In binocular rivalry (BR), two images alternate in phenomenal visibility; even a salient image is eventually suppressed by an image of low saliency. Recently, N. Tsuchiya and C. Koch (2005) reported a technique called continuous flash suppression (CFS), extending the suppression duration more than 10-fold. Here, we investigated the depth of this prolonged form of interocular suppression as well as conventional BR and flash suppression (FS) using a probe detection task. Compared to monocular viewing condition, CFS elevated detection thresholds more than 20-fold, whereas BR did so by 3-fold. In subsequent experiments, we dissected CFS into several components. By manipulating the number and timing of flashes with respect to the probe, we found that the stronger suppression in CFS is not due to summation between BR and FS but is caused by the summation of the suppression due to multiple flashes. Our results support the view that CFS is not a stronger version of BR but is due to the accumulated suppressive effects of multiple flashes

‘It’s too late’. Is it really? Considerations for amblyopia treatment in older children

In recent years, media coverage has demonstrated instances in which families of children aged 7 and older, newly diagnosed with strabismic and/or anisometropic amblyopia through community eyecare services, were told it was ‘too late’ for their child to effectively respond to conventional amblyopia treatment (occlusion or atropine penalisation). Formal guidance pertaining to binocular vision anomalies from eyecare professional bodies does not specifically make reference to a child’s age, beyond stating the importance of early diagnosis and treatment of strabismus/amblyopia. However, there have been many changes in the way we view the recovery period for amblyopia, and it is well demonstrated both within literature and clinical practice that conventional treatment can improve amblyopic eye visual acuity in children beyond the age of 7 years. The occurrence of these media described cases within the community eyecare sphere would suggest it is worthwhile revisiting the literature on the subject of amblyopia treatment in older children (aged 7+ years), to address misconceptions and place in the spotlight current considerations facing clinicians when treating newly diagnosed amblyopia within this age group. This perspective review provides an evidence-based update covering the various considerations associated with treatment of amblyopia in older children, along with recent amblyopia treatment advances that could have an impact on treatment prospects for this patient group. Considerations include the risks, benefits and efficacy of treating newly diagnosed amblyopia in older children, monitoring density of suppression to mitigate intractable diplopia risk, and recent findings regarding binocular treatments for amblyopia

Eye contact facilitates awareness of faces during interocular suppression

Eye contact captures attention and receives prioritized visual processing. Here we asked whether eye contact might be processed outside conscious awareness. Faces with direct and averted gaze were rendered invisible using interocular suppression. In two experiments we found that faces with direct gaze overcame such suppression more rapidly than faces with averted gaze. Control experiments ruled out the influence of low-level stimulus differences and differential response criteria. These results indicate an enhanced unconscious representation of direct gaze, enabling the automatic and rapid detection of other individuals making eye contact with the observer

A Dissociation of Attention and Awareness in Phase-sensitive but Not Phase-insensitive Visual Channels

The elements most vivid in our conscious awareness are the ones to which we direct our attention. Scientific study confirms the impression of a close bond between selective attention and visual awareness, yet the nature of this association remains elusive. Using visual afterimages as an index, we investigate neural processing of stimuli as they enter awareness and as they become the object of attention. We find evidence of response enhancement accompanying both attention and awareness, both in the phase-sensitive neural channels characteristic of early processing stages and in the phase-insensitive channels typical of higher cortical areas. The effects of attention and awareness on phase-insensitive responses are positively correlated, but in the same experiments, we observe no correlation between the effects on phase-sensitive responses. This indicates independent signatures of attention and awareness in early visual areas yet a convergence of their effects at more advanced processing stages

Saccadic latency in amblyopia.

We measured saccadic latencies in a large sample (total n = 459) of individuals with amblyopia or risk factors for amblyopia, e.g., strabismus or anisometropia, and normal control subjects. We presented an easily visible target randomly to the left or right, 3.5° from fixation. The interocular difference in saccadic latency is highly correlated with the interocular difference in LogMAR (Snellen) acuity-as the acuity difference increases, so does the latency difference. Strabismic and strabismic-anisometropic amblyopes have, on average, a larger difference between their eyes in LogMAR acuity than anisometropic amblyopes and thus their interocular latency difference is, on average, significantly larger than anisometropic amblyopes. Despite its relation to LogMAR acuity, the longer latency in strabismic amblyopes cannot be attributed either to poor resolution or to reduced contrast sensitivity, because their interocular differences in grating acuity and in contrast sensitivity are roughly the same as for anisometropic amblyopes. The correlation between LogMAR acuity and saccadic latency arises because of the confluence of two separable effects in the strabismic amblyopic eye-poor letter recognition impairs LogMAR acuity while an intrinsic sluggishness delays reaction time. We speculate that the frequent microsaccades and the accompanying attentional shifts, made while strabismic amblyopes struggle to maintain fixation with their amblyopic eyes, result in all types of reactions being irreducibly delayed

Seeing the invisible: The scope and limits of unconscious processing in binocular rivalry

When an image is presented to one eye and a very different image is presented to the corresponding location of the other eye, they compete for conscious representation, such that only one image is visible at a time while the other is suppressed. Called binocular rivalry, this phenomenon and its deviants have been extensively exploited to study the mechanism and neural correlates of consciousness. In this paper, we propose a framework, the unconscious binding hypothesis, to distinguish unconscious processing from conscious processing. According to this framework, the unconscious mind not only encodes individual features but also temporally binds distributed features to give rise to cortical representation, but unlike conscious binding, such unconscious binding is fragile. Under this framework, we review evidence from psychophysical and neuroimaging studies, which suggests that: (1) for invisible low level features, prolonged exposure to visual pattern and simple translational motion can alter the appearance of subsequent visible features (i.e. adaptation); for invisible high level features, although complex spiral motion cannot produce adaptation, nor can objects/words enhance subsequent processing of related stimuli (i.e. priming), images of tools can nevertheless activate the dorsal pathway; and (2) although invisible central cues cannot orient attention, invisible erotic pictures in the periphery can nevertheless guide attention, likely through emotional arousal; reciprocally, the processing of invisible information can be modulated by attention at perceptual and neural levels

Binocular contrast discrimination needs monocular multiplicative noise.

The effects of signal and noise on contrast discrimination are difficult to separate because of a singularity in the signal-detection-theory model of two-alternative forced-choice contrast discrimination (Katkov, Tsodyks, & Sagi, 2006). In this article, we show that it is possible to eliminate the singularity by combining that model with a binocular combination model to fit monocular, dichoptic, and binocular contrast discrimination. We performed three experiments using identical stimuli to measure the perceived phase, perceived contrast, and contrast discrimination of a cyclopean sine wave. In the absence of a fixation point, we found a binocular advantage in contrast discrimination both at low contrasts (<4%), consistent with previous studies, and at high contrasts (≥34%), which has not been previously reported. However, control experiments showed no binocular advantage at high contrasts in the presence of a fixation point or for observers without accommodation. We evaluated two putative contrast-discrimination mechanisms: a nonlinear contrast transducer and multiplicative noise (MN). A binocular combination model (the DSKL model; Ding, Klein, & Levi, 2013b) was first fitted to both the perceived-phase and the perceived-contrast data sets, then combined with either the nonlinear contrast transducer or the MN mechanism to fit the contrast-discrimination data. We found that the best model combined the DSKL model with early MN. Model simulations showed that, after going through interocular suppression, the uncorrelated noise in the two eyes became anticorrelated, resulting in less binocular noise and therefore a binocular advantage in the discrimination task. Combining a nonlinear contrast transducer or MN with a binocular combination model (DSKL) provides a powerful method for evaluating the two putative contrast-discrimination mechanisms