Binocular summation, binocular fusion and the transition to diplopia

The visual system combines spatial signals from the two eyes to achieve single vision. But if binocular disparity is too large, this perceptual fusion gives way to diplopia. We studied and modelled the processes underlying fusion and the transition to diplopia. The likely basis for fusion is linear summation of inputs onto binocular cortical cells. Previous studies of perceived position, contrast matching and contrast discrimination imply the computation of a dynamicallyweighted sum, where the weights vary with relative contrast. For gratings, perceived contrast was almost constant across all disparities, and this can be modelled by allowing the ocular weights to increase with disparity (Zhou, Georgeson & Hess, 2014). However, when a single Gaussian-blurred edge was shown to each eye perceived blur was invariant with disparity (Georgeson & Wallis, ECVP 2012) – not consistent with linear summation (which predicts that perceived blur increases with disparity). This blur constancy is consistent with a multiplicative form of combination (the contrast-weighted geometric mean) but that is hard to reconcile with the evidence favouring linear combination. We describe a 2-stage spatial filtering model with linear binocular combination and suggest that nonlinear output transduction (eg. ‘half-squaring’) at each stage may account for the blur constancy.

The relationship between fusion, suppression, and diplopia in amblyopia

Purpose: Traditionally, it has been thought that no binocular combination occurs in amblyopia. However, there is a growing body of evidence that there are intact binocular mechanisms in amblyopia rendered inactive under normal viewing conditions due to imbalanced monocular inputs. Georgeson and Wallis (2014) recently introduced a novel method to investigate fusion, suppression and diplopia in normal population. We have modified this method to assess binocular interactions in amblyopia. Methods: Ten amblyopic and ten control subjects viewed briefly-presented (200 ms) pairs of dichoptically separated horizontal Gaussian blurred edges. Subjects reported one central edge, one offset edge, or a double edge as the vertical disparity was manipulated. The experiment was conducted at a range of spatial scales (blur widths of 4, 8, 16, and 32 arc min) and contrasts. Our model, based Georgeson and Wallis (2014), converted subjects’ responses into probabilities of fusion, suppression, and diplopia. Results: When the normal participants were presented equal contrast to each eye the probability of fusion gradually decreased with increasing disparity, as the probability of diplopia gradually increased. In only a small proportion of the trials, normal participants experienced suppression. The pattern was consistent across all edge blurs. Interestingly, the majority of amblyopes had a comparable pattern of fusion, i.e. decreasing probability with increasing disparity. However, with increasing disparity the amblyopes tended to suppress the amblyopic eye, experiencing diplopia only in a small proportion of trials particularly at large blurs. Increasing the interocular contrast offset favouring the amblyopic eye normalized the pattern of data in a way similar to normal participants. There were some interesting exceptions: strong suppressors for which our contrast range was inadequate and one case in which diplopia dominated. Conclusions: This task is suitable for assessing binocular interactions in amblyopic participants and providing a way to quantify the relationship between fusion, suppression and diplopia. In agreement with previous studies, our data indicate the presence of binocular mechanisms in amblyopia. A contrast offset favouring the amblyopic eye normalizes the measured binocular interactions in the amblyopic visual system.