The effect of interocular phase difference on perceived contrast

Binocular vision is traditionally treated as two processes: the fusion of similar images, and the interocular suppression of dissimilar images (e.g. binocular rivalry). Recent work has demonstrated that interocular suppression is phase-insensitive, whereas binocular summation occurs only when stimuli are in phase. But how do these processes affect our perception of binocular contrast? We measured perceived contrast using a matching paradigm for a wide range of interocular phase offsets (0–180°) and matching contrasts (2–32%). Our results revealed a complex interaction between contrast and interocular phase. At low contrasts, perceived contrast reduced monotonically with increasing phase offset, by up to a factor of 1.6. At higher contrasts the pattern was non-monotonic: perceived contrast was veridical for in-phase and antiphase conditions, and monocular presentation, but increased a little at intermediate phase angles. These findings challenge a recent model in which contrast perception is phase-invariant. The results were predicted by a binocular contrast gain control model. The model involves monocular gain controls with interocular suppression from positive and negative phase channels, followed by summation across eyes and then across space. Importantly, this model—applied to conditions with vertical disparity—has only a single (zero) disparity channel and embodies both fusion and suppression processes within a single framework.

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.

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.

Motion, flash, and flicker:A unified spatiotemporal model of perceived edge sharpening

Blurred edges appear sharper in motion than when they are stationary. We proposed a model of this motion sharpening that invokes a local, nonlinear contrast transducer function (Hammett et al, 1998 Vision Research 38 2099-2108). Response saturation in the transducer compresses or 'clips' the input spatial waveform, rendering the edges as sharper. To explain the increasing distortion of drifting edges at higher speeds, the degree of nonlinearity must increase with speed or temporal frequency. A dynamic contrast gain control before the transducer can account for both the speed dependence and approximate contrast invariance of motion sharpening (Hammett et al, 2003 Vision Research, in press). We show here that this model also predicts perceived sharpening of briefly flashed and flickering edges, and we show that the model can account fairly well for experimental data from all three modes of presentation (motion, flash, and flicker). At moderate durations and lower temporal frequencies the gain control attenuates the input signal, thus protecting it from later compression by the transducer. The gain control is somewhat sluggish, and so it suffers both a slow onset, and loss of power at high temporal frequencies. Consequently, brief presentations and high temporal frequencies of drift and flicker are less protected from distortion, and show greater perceptual sharpening.

Spatial and temporal dependencies of cross-orientation suppression in human vision.

A well-known property of orientation-tuned neurons in the visual cortex is that they are suppressed by the superposition of an orthogonal mask. This phenomenon has been explained in terms of physiological constraints (synaptic depression), engineering solutions for components with poor dynamic range (contrast normalization) and fundamental coding strategies for natural images (redundancy reduction). A common but often tacit assumption is that the suppressive process is equally potent at different spatial and temporal scales of analysis. To determine whether it is so, we measured psychophysical cross-orientation masking (XOM) functions for flickering horizontal Gabor stimuli over wide ranges of spatio-temporal frequency and contrast. We found that orthogonal masks raised contrast detection thresholds substantially at low spatial frequencies and high temporal frequencies (high speeds), and that small and unexpected levels of facilitation were evident elsewhere. The data were well fit by a functional model of contrast gain control, where (i) the weight of suppression increased with the ratio of temporal to spatial frequency and (ii) the weight of facilitatory modulation was the same for all conditions, but outcompeted by suppression at higher contrasts. These results (i) provide new constraints for models of primary visual cortex, (ii) associate XOM and facilitation with the transient magno- and sustained parvostreams, respectively, and (iii) reconcile earlier conflicting psychophysical reports on XOM.

What is second-order vision for? Discriminating illumination versus material changes

The human visual system is sensitive to second-order modulations of the local contrast (CM) or amplitude (AM) of a carrier signal. Second-order cues are detected independently of first-order luminance signals; however, it is not clear why vision should benet from second-order sensitivity. Analysis of the first-and second-order contents of natural images suggests that these cues tend to occur together, but their phase relationship varies. We have shown that in-phase combinations of LM and AM are perceived as a shaded corrugated surface whereas the anti-phase combination can be seen as corrugated when presented alone or as a flat material change when presented in a plaid containing the in-phase cue. We now extend these findings using new stimulus types and a novel haptic matching task. We also introduce a computational model based on initially separate first-and second-order channels that are combined within orientation and subsequently across orientation to produce a shading signal. Contrast gain control allows the LM + AM cue to suppress responses to the LM-AM when presented in a plaid. Thus, the model sees LM -AM as flat in these circumstances. We conclude that second-order vision plays a key role in disambiguating the origin of luminance changes within an image. © ARVO.

Pooling and suppression in human spatial vision

A distinct feature of several recent models of contrast masking is that detecting mechanisms are divisively inhibited by a broadly tuned ‘gain pool’ of narrow-band spatial pattern mechanisms. The contrast gain control provided by this ‘cross-channel’ architecture achieves contrast normalisation of early pattern mechanisms, which is important for keeping them within the non-saturating part of their biological operating characteristic. These models superseded earlier ‘within-channel’ models, which had supposed that masking arose from direct stimulation of the detecting mechanism by the mask. To reveal the extent of masking, I measured the levels produced with large ranges of pattern spatial relationships that have not been explored before. Substantial interactions between channels tuned to different orientations and spatial frequencies were found. Differences in the masking levels produced with single and multiple component mask patterns provided insights into the summation rules within the gain pool. A widely used cross-channel masking model was tested on these data and was found to perform poorly. The model was developed and a version in which linear summation was allowed between all components within the gain pool but with the exception of the self-suppressing route typically provided the best account of the data. Subsequently, an adaptation paradigm was used to probe the processes underlying pooled responses in masking. This delivered less insight into the pooling than the other studies and areas were identified that require investigation for a new unifying model of masking and adaptation. In further experiments, levels of cross-channel masking were found to be greatly influenced by the spatio-temporal tuning of the channels involved. Old masking experiments and ideas relying on within-channel models were re-elevated in terms of contemporary cross-channel models (e.g. estimations of channel bandwidths from orientation masking functions) and this led to different conclusions than those originally arrived at. The investigation of effects with spatio-temporally superimposed patterns is focussed upon throughout this work, though it is shown how these enquiries might be extended to investigate effects across spatial and temporal position.

Orientation masking and cross-orientation suppression (XOS):implications for estimates of channel bandwidth

Most contemporary models of spatial vision include a cross-oriented route to suppression (masking from a broadly tuned inhibitory pool), which is most potent at low spatial and high temporal frequencies (T. S. Meese & D. J. Holmes, 2007). The influence of this pathway can elevate orientation-masking functions without exciting the target mechanism, and because early psychophysical estimates of filter bandwidth did not accommodate this, it is likely that they have been overestimated for this corner of stimulus space. Here we show that a transient 40% contrast mask causes substantial binocular threshold elevation for a transient vertical target, and this declines from a mask orientation of 0° to about 40° (indicating tuning), and then more gently to 90°, where it remains at a factor of ∼4. We also confirm that cross-orientation masking is diminished or abolished at high spatial frequencies and for sustained temporal modulation. We fitted a simple model of pedestal masking and cross-orientation suppression (XOS) to our data and those of G. C. Phillips and H. R. Wilson (1984) and found the dependency of orientation bandwidth on spatial frequency to be much less than previously supposed. An extension of our linear spatial pooling model of contrast gain control and dilution masking (T. S. Meese & R. J. Summers, 2007) is also shown to be consistent with our results using filter bandwidths of ±20°. Both models include tightly and broadly tuned components of divisive suppression. More generally, because XOS and/or dilution masking can affect the shape of orientation-masking curves, we caution that variations in bandwidth estimates might reflect variations in processes that have nothing to do with filter bandwidth.

Interocular suppression in normal and amblyopic vision:spatio-temporal properties

We measured the properties of interocular suppression in strabismic amblyopes and compared these to dichoptic masking in binocularly normal observers. We used a dichoptic version of the well-established probed-sinewave paradigm that measured sensitivity to a brief target stimulus (one of four letters to be discriminated) in the amblyopic eye at different times relative to a suppression-inducing mask in the fixing eye. This was done using both sinusoidal steady state and transient approaches. The suppression-inducing masks were either modulations of luminance or contrast (full field, just overlaying the target, or just surrounding the target). Our results were interpreted using a descriptive model that included contrast gain control and spatio-temporal filtering prior to excitatory binocular combination. The suppression we measured, other than in magnitude, was not fundamentally different from normal dichoptic masking: lowpass spatio-temporal properties with similar contributions from both surround and overlay suppression.

Cross-orientation masking is speed invariant between ocular pathways but speed dependent within them

In human (D. H. Baker, T. S. Meese, & R. J. Summers, 2007b) and in cat (B. Li, M. R. Peterson, J. K. Thompson, T. Duong, & R. D. Freeman, 2005; F. Sengpiel & V. Vorobyov, 2005) there are at least two routes to cross-orientation suppression (XOS): a broadband, non-adaptable, monocular (within-eye) pathway and a more narrowband, adaptable interocular (between the eyes) pathway. We further characterized these two routes psychophysically by measuring the weight of suppression across spatio-temporal frequency for cross-oriented pairs of superimposed flickering Gabor patches. Masking functions were normalized to unmasked detection thresholds and fitted by a two-stage model of contrast gain control (T. S. Meese, M. A. Georgeson, & D. H. Baker, 2006) that was developed to accommodate XOS. The weight of monocular suppression was a power function of the scalar quantity ‘speed’ (temporal-frequency/spatial-frequency). This weight can be expressed as the ratio of non-oriented magno- and parvo-like mechanisms, permitting a fast-acting, early locus, as befits the urgency for action associated with high retinal speeds. In contrast, dichoptic-masking functions superimposed. Overall, this (i) provides further evidence for dissociation between the two forms of XOS in humans, and (ii) indicates that the monocular and interocular varieties of XOS are space/time scale-dependent and scale-invariant, respectively. This suggests an image-processing role for interocular XOS that is tailored to natural image statistics—very different from that of the scale-dependent (speed-dependent) monocular variety.

Contrast discrimination with simultaneous monocular and dichoptic masks

In experiments reported elsewhere at this conference, we have revealed two striking results concerning binocular interactions in a masking paradigm. First, at low mask contrasts, a dichoptic masking grating produces a small facilitatory effect on the detection of a similar test grating. Second, the psychometric slope for dichoptic masking starts high (Weibull ß~4) at detection threshold, becomes low (ß~1.2) in the facilitatory region, and then unusually steep at high mask contrasts (ß~5.5). Neither of these results is consistent with Legge's (1984 Vision Research 24 385 - 394) model of binocular summation, but they are predicted by a two-stage gain control model in which interocular suppression precedes binocular summation. Here, we pose a further challenge for this model by using a 'twin-mask' paradigm (cf Foley, 1994 Journal of the Optical Society of America A 11 1710 - 1719). In 2AFC experiments, observers detected a patch of grating (1 cycle deg-1, 200 ms) presented to one eye in the presence of a pedestal in the same eye and a spatially identical mask in the other eye. The pedestal and mask contrasts varied independently, producing a two-dimensional masking space in which the orthogonal axes (10X10 contrasts) represent conventional dichoptic and monocular masking. The resulting surface (100 thresholds) confirmed and extended the observations above, and fixed the six parameters in the model, which fitted the data well. With no adjustment of parameters, the model described performance in a further experiment where mask and test were presented to both eyes. Moreover, in both model and data, binocular summation was greater than a factor of v2 at detection threshold. We conclude that this two-stage nonlinear model, with interocular suppression, gives a good account of early binocular processes in the perception of contrast. [Supported by EPSRC Grant Reference: GR/S74515/01]

Fixed or variable noise in contrast discrimination? The jury's still out

The ability to distinguish one visual stimulus from another slightly different one depends on the variability of their internal representations. In a recent paper on human visual-contrast discrimination, Kontsevich et al (2002 Vision Research 42 1771 - 1784) re-considered the long-standing question whether the internal noise that limits discrimination is fixed (contrast-invariant) or variable (contrast-dependent). They tested discrimination performance for 3 cycles deg-1 gratings over a wide range of incremental contrast levels at three masking contrasts, and showed that a simple model with an expansive response function and response-dependent noise could fit the data very well. Their conclusion - that noise in visual-discrimination tasks increases markedly with contrast - has profound implications for our understanding and modelling of vision. Here, however, we re-analyse their data, and report that a standard gain-control model with a compressive response function and fixed additive noise can also fit the data remarkably well. Thus these experimental data do not allow us to decide between the two models. The question remains open. [Supported by EPSRC grant GR/S74515/01]

Size matters, but not for everyone:Individual differences for contrast discrimination

It is very well known that contrast detection thresholds improve with the size of a grating-type stimulus, but it is thought that the benefit of size is abolished for contrast discriminations well above threshold (e.g., Legge, G. E., & Foley, J. M. (1980)]. Here we challenge the generality of this view. We performed contrast detection and contrast discrimination for circular patches of sine wave grating as a function of stimulus size. We confirm that sensitivity improves with approximately the fourth-root of stimulus area at detection threshold (a log-log slope of -0.25) but find individual differences (IDs) for the suprathreshold discrimination task. For several observers, performance was largely unaffected by area, but for others performance first improved (by as much as a log-log slope of -0.5) and then reached a plateau. We replicated these different results several times on the same observers. All of these results were described in the context of a recent gain control model of area summation [Meese, T. S. (2004)], extended to accommodate the multiple stimulus sizes used here. In this model, (i) excitation increased with the fourth-root of stimulus area for all observers, and (ii) IDs in the discrimination data were described by IDs in the relation between suppression and area. This means that empirical summation in the contrast discrimination task can be attributed to growth in suppression with stimulus size that does not keep pace with the growth in excitation. © 2005 ARVO.

Adaptation and gain pool summation:Alternative models and masking data

Foley [J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 11 (1994) 1710] has proposed an influential psychophysical model of masking in which mask components in a contrast gain pool are raised to an exponent before summation and divisive inhibition. We tested this summation rule in experiments in which contrast detection thresholds were measured for a vertical 1 c/deg (or 2 c/deg) sine-wave component in the presence of a 3 c/deg (or 6 c/deg) mask that had either a single component oriented at -45° or a pair of components oriented at ±45°. Contrary to the predictions of Foley's model 3, we found that for masks of moderate contrast and above, threshold elevation was predicted by linear summation of the mask components in the inhibitory stage of the contrast gain pool. We built this feature into two new models, referred to as the early adaptation model and the hybrid model. In the early adaptation model, contrast adaptation controls a threshold-like nonlinearity on the output of otherwise linear pathways that provide the excitatory and inhibitory inputs to a gain control stage. The hybrid model involves nonlinear and nonadaptable routes to excitatory and inhibitory stages as well as an adaptable linear route. With only six free parameters, both models provide excellent fits to the masking and adaptation data of Foley and Chen [Vision Res. 37 (1997) 2779] but unlike Foley and Chen's model, are able to do so with only one adaptation parameter. However, only the hybrid model is able to capture the features of Foley's (1994) pedestal plus orthogonal fixed mask data. We conclude that (1) linear summation of inhibitory components is a feature of contrast masking, and (2) that the main aftereffect of spatial adaptation on contrast increment thresholds can be assigned to a single site. © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Linear binocular combination of responses to contrast modulation:contrast-weighted summation in first- and second-order vision

Binocular combination for first-order (luminancedefined) stimuli has been widely studied, but we know rather little about this binocular process for spatial modulations of contrast (second-order stimuli). We used phase-matching and amplitude-matching tasks to assess binocular combination of second-order phase and modulation depth simultaneously. With fixed modulation in one eye, we found that binocularly perceived phase was shifted, and perceived amplitude increased almost linearly as modulation depth in the other eye increased. At larger disparities, the phase shift was larger and the amplitude change was smaller. The degree of interocular correlation of the carriers had no influence. These results can be explained by an initial extraction of the contrast envelopes before binocular combination (consistent with the lack of dependence on carrier correlation) followed by a weighted linear summation of second-order modulations in which the weights (gains) for each eye are driven by the first-order carrier contrasts as previously found for first-order binocular combination. Perceived modulation depth fell markedly with increasing phase disparity unlike previous findings that perceived first-order contrast was almost independent of phase disparity. We present a simple revision to a widely used interocular gain-control theory that unifies first- and second-order binocular summation with a single principle-contrast-weighted summation-and we further elaborate the model for first-order combination. Conclusion: Second-order combination is controlled by first-order contrast.