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]

The role of texture amplitude in shape from shading

When a textured surface is modulated in depth and illuminated, parts of the surface receive different levels of illumination; the resulting variations in luminance can be used to infer the shape of the depth modulations-shape from shading. The changes in illumination also produce changes in the amplitude of the texture, although local contrast remains constant. We investigated the role of texture amplitude in supporting shape from shading. If a luminance plaid is added to a binary noise texture (LM), shape from shading produces perception of corrugations in two directions. If the amplitude of the noise is also modulated (AM) such that it is in-phase with one of the luminance sinusoids and out-of-phase with the other, the resulting surface is seen as corrugated in only one directionöthat supported by the in-phase pairing. We confirmed this subjective report experimentally, using a depth-mapping technique. Further, we asked naïve observers to indicate the direction of corrugations in plaids made up of various combinations of LM and AM. LM+AM was seen as having most depth, then LM-only, then LM-AM, and then AM-only. Our results suggest that while LM is required to see depth from shading, its phase relative to any AM component is also important.

Edges and bars: where do people see features in 1-D images?

There have been two main approaches to feature detection in human and computer vision - based either on the luminance distribution and its spatial derivatives, or on the spatial distribution of local contrast energy. Thus, bars and edges might arise from peaks of luminance and luminance gradient respectively, or bars and edges might be found at peaks of local energy, where local phases are aligned across spatial frequency. This basic issue of definition is important because it guides more detailed models and interpretations of early vision. Which approach better describes the perceived positions of features in images? We used the class of 1-D images defined by Morrone and Burr in which the amplitude spectrum is that of a (partially blurred) square-wave and all Fourier components have a common phase. Observers used a cursor to mark where bars and edges were seen for different test phases (Experiment 1) or judged the spatial alignment of contours that had different phases (e.g. 0 degrees and 45 degrees ; Experiment 2). The feature positions defined by both tasks shifted systematically to the left or right according to the sign of the phase offset, increasing with the degree of blur. These shifts were well predicted by the location of luminance peaks (bars) and gradient peaks (edges), but not by energy peaks which (by design) predicted no shift at all. These results encourage models based on a Gaussian-derivative framework, but do not support the idea that human vision uses points of phase alignment to find local, first-order features. Nevertheless, we argue that both approaches are presently incomplete and a better understanding of early vision may combine insights from both. (C)2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contrast discrimination and pattern masking: contrast gain control with fixed additive noise

We studied the visual mechanisms that serve to encode spatial contrast at threshold and supra-threshold levels. In a 2AFC contrast-discrimination task, observers had to detect the presence of a vertical 1 cycle deg-1 test grating (of contrast dc) that was superimposed on a similar vertical 1 cycle deg-1 pedestal grating, whereas in pattern masking the test grating was accompanied by a very different masking grating (horizontal 1 cycle deg-1, or oblique 3 cycles deg-1). When expressed as threshold contrast (dc at 75% correct) versus mask contrast (c) our results confirm previous ones in showing a characteristic 'dipper function' for contrast discrimination but a smoothly increasing threshold for pattern masking. However, fresh insight is gained by analysing and modelling performance (p; percent correct) as a joint function of (c, dc) - the performance surface. In contrast discrimination, psychometric functions (p versus logdc) are markedly less steep when c is above threshold, but in pattern masking this reduction of slope did not occur. We explored a standard gain-control model with six free parameters. Three parameters control the contrast response of the detection mechanism and one parameter weights the mask contrast in the cross-channel suppression effect. We assume that signal-detection performance (d') is limited by additive noise of constant variance. Noise level and lapse rate are also fitted parameters of the model. We show that this model accounts very accurately for the whole performance surface in both types of masking, and thus explains the threshold functions and the pattern of variation in psychometric slopes. The cross-channel weight is about 0.20. The model shows that the mechanism response to contrast increment (dc) is linearised by the presence of pedestal contrasts but remains nonlinear in pattern masking.

Perceiving edge blur: Gaussian-derivative filtering and a rectifying nonlinearity

We studied the visual mechanisms that encode edge blur in images. Our previous work suggested that the visual system spatially differentiates the luminance profile twice to create the `signature' of the edge, and then evaluates the spatial scale of this signature profile by applying Gaussian derivative templates of different sizes. The scale of the best-fitting template indicates the blur of the edge. In blur-matching experiments, a staircase procedure was used to adjust the blur of a comparison edge (40% contrast, 0.3 s duration) until it appeared to match the blur of test edges at different contrasts (5% - 40%) and blurs (6 - 32 min of arc). Results showed that lower-contrast edges looked progressively sharper. We also added a linear luminance gradient to blurred test edges. When the added gradient was of opposite polarity to the edge gradient, it made the edge look progressively sharper. Both effects can be explained quantitatively by the action of a half-wave rectifying nonlinearity that sits between the first and second (linear) differentiating stages. This rectifier was introduced to account for a range of other effects on perceived blur (Barbieri-Hesse and Georgeson, 2002 Perception 31 Supplement, 54), but it readily predicts the influence of the negative ramp. The effect of contrast arises because the rectifier has a threshold: it not only suppresses negative values but also small positive values. At low contrasts, more of the gradient profile falls below threshold and its effective spatial scale shrinks in size, leading to perceived sharpening.

Perceiving edge blur: linear filtering and a rectifying nonlinearity

We studied the visual mechanisms that encode edge blur in images. Our previous work suggested that the visual system spatially differentiates the luminance profile twice to create the 'signature' of the edge, and then evaluates the spatial scale of this signature profile by applying Gaussian derivative templates of different sizes. The scale of the best-fitting template indicates the blur of the edge. In blur-matching experiments, a staircase procedure was used to adjust the blur of a comparison edge (40% contrast, 0.3 s duration) until it appeared to match the blur of test edges at different contrasts (5% - 40%) and blurs (6 - 32 min of arc). Results showed that lower-contrast edges looked progressively sharper.We also added a linear luminance gradient to blurred test edges. When the added gradient was of opposite polarity to the edge gradient, it made the edge look progressively sharper. Both effects can be explained quantitatively by the action of a half-wave rectifying nonlinearity that sits between the first and second (linear) differentiating stages. This rectifier was introduced to account for a range of other effects on perceived blur (Barbieri-Hesse and Georgeson, 2002 Perception 31 Supplement, 54), but it readily predicts the influence of the negative ramp. The effect of contrast arises because the rectifier has a threshold: it not only suppresses negative values but also small positive values. At low contrasts, more of the gradient profile falls below threshold and its effective spatial scale shrinks in size, leading to perceived sharpening.

Shading and texture:Separate information channels with a common adaptation mechanism?

We outline a scheme for the way in which early vision may handle information about shading (luminance modulation, LM) and texture (contrast modulation, CM). Previous work on the detection of gratings has found no sub-threshold summation, and no cross-adaptation, between LM and CM patterns. This strongly implied separate channels for the detection of LM and CM structure. However, we now report experiments in which adapting to LM (or CM) gratings creates tilt aftereffects of similar magnitude on both LM and CM test gratings, and reduces the perceived strength (modulation depth) of LM and CM gratings to a similar extent. This transfer of aftereffects between LM and CM might suggest a second stage of processing at which LM and CM information is integrated. The nature of this integration, however, is unclear and several simple predictions are not fulfilled. Firstly, one might expect the integration stage to lose identity information about whether the pattern was LM or CM. We show instead that the identity of barely detectable LM and CM patterns is not lost. Secondly, when LM and CM gratings are combined in-phase or out-of-phase we find no evidence for cancellation, nor for 'phase-blindness'. These results suggest that information about LM and CM is not pooled or merged - shading is not confused with texture variation. We suggest that LM and CM signals are carried by separate channels, but they share a common adaptation mechanism that accounts for the almost complete transfer of perceptual aftereffects.

Seeing edge blur: receptive fields as multiscale neural templates

Edge blur is an important perceptual cue, but how does the visual system encode the degree of blur at edges? Blur could be measured by the width of the luminance gradient profile, peak ^ trough separation in the 2nd derivative profile, or the ratio of 1st-to-3rd derivative magnitudes. In template models, the system would store a set of templates of different sizes and find which one best fits the `signature' of the edge. The signature could be the luminance profile itself, or one of its spatial derivatives. I tested these possibilities in blur-matching experiments. In a 2AFC staircase procedure, observers adjusted the blur of Gaussian edges (30% contrast) to match the perceived blur of various non-Gaussian test edges. In experiment 1, test stimuli were mixtures of 2 Gaussian edges (eg 10 and 30 min of arc blur) at the same location, while in experiment 2, test stimuli were formed from a blurred edge sharpened to different extents by a compressive transformation. Predictions of the various models were tested against the blur-matching data, but only one model was strongly supported. This was the template model, in which the input signature is the 2nd derivative of the luminance profile, and the templates are applied to this signature at the zero-crossings. The templates are Gaussian derivative receptive fields that covary in width and length to form a self-similar set (ie same shape, different sizes). This naturally predicts that shorter edges should look sharper. As edge length gets shorter, responses of longer templates drop more than shorter ones, and so the response distribution shifts towards shorter (smaller) templates, signalling a sharper edge. The data confirmed this, including the scale-invariance implied by self-similarity, and a good fit was obtained from templates with a length-to-width ratio of about 1. The simultaneous analysis of edge blur and edge location may offer a new solution to the multiscale problem in edge detection.

Contrast masking in strabismic amblyopia: attenuation, noise, interocular suppression and binocular summation

To investigate amblyopic contrast vision at threshold and above we performed pedestal-masking (contrastdiscrimination) experiments with a group of eight strabismic amblyopes using horizontal sinusoidal gratings (mainly 3 c/deg) in monocular, binocular and dichoptic configurations balanced across eye (i.e. five conditions). With some exceptions in some observers, the four main results were as follows. (1) For the monocular and dichoptic conditions, sensitivity was less in the amblyopic eye than in the good eye at all mask contrasts. (2) Binocular and monocular dipper functions superimposed in the good eye. (3) Monocular masking functions had a normal dipper shape in the good eye, but facilitation was diminished in the amblyopic eye. (4) A less consistent result was normal facilitation in dichoptic masking when testing the good eye, but a loss of this when testing the amblyopic eye. This pattern of amblyopic results was replicated in a normal observer by placing a neutral density filter in front of one eye. The two-stage model of binocular contrast gain control [Meese, T.S., Georgeson, M.A. & Baker, D.H. (2006). Binocular contrast vision at and above threshold. Journal of Vision 6, 1224--1243.] was `lesioned' in several ways to assess the form of the amblyopic deficit. The most successful model involves attenuation of signal and an increase in noise in the amblyopic eye, and intact stages of interocular suppression and binocular summation. This implies a behavioural influence from monocular noise in the amblyopic visual system as well as in normal observers with an ND filter over one eye.

Binocular contrast interactions:Dichoptic masking is not a single process

To decouple interocular suppression and binocular summation we varied the relative phase of mask and target in a 2IFC contrast-masking paradigm. In Experiment I, dichoptic mask gratings had the same orientation and spatial frequency as the target. For in-phase masking, suppression was strong (a log-log slope of ∼1) and there was weak facilitation at low mask contrasts. Anti-phase masking was weaker (a log-log slope of ∼0.7) and there was no facilitation. A two-stage model of contrast gain control [Meese, T.S., Georgeson, M.A. and Baker, D.H. (2006). Binocular contrast vision at and above threshold. Journal of Vision, 6: 1224-1243] provided a good fit to the in-phase results and fixed its free parameters. It made successful predictions (with no free parameters) for the anti-phase results when (A) interocular suppression was phase-indifferent but (B) binocular summation was phase sensitive. Experiments II and III showed that interocular suppression comprised two components: (i) a tuned effect with an orientation bandwidth of ∼±33° and a spatial frequency bandwidth of >3 octaves, and (ii) an untuned effect that elevated threshold by a factor of between 2 and 4. Operationally, binocular summation was more tightly tuned, having an orientation bandwidth of ∼±8°, and a spatial frequency bandwidth of ∼0.5 octaves. Our results replicate the unusual shapes of the in-phase dichoptic tuning functions reported by Legge [Legge, G.E. (1979). Spatial frequency masking in human vision: Binocular interactions. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 69: 838-847]. These can now be seen as the envelope of the direct effects from interocular suppression and the indirect effect from binocular summation, which contaminates the signal channel with a mask that has been suppressed by the target. © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Suppression pathways saturate with contrast for parallel surrounds but not for superimposed cross-oriented masks

Contrast masking from parallel grating surrounds (doughnuts) and superimposed orthogonal masks have different characteristics. However, it is not known whether the saturation of the underlying suppression that has been found for parallel doughnut masks depends on (i) relative mask and target orientation, (ii) stimulus eccentricity or (iii) surround suppression. We measured contrast-masking functions for target patches of grating in the fovea and in the periphery for cross-oriented superimposed and doughnut masks and parallel doughnut masks. When suppression was evident, the factor that determined whether it accelerated or saturated was whether the mask stimulus was crossed or parallel. There are at least two interpretations of the asymptotic behaviour of the parallel surround mask. (1) Suppression arises from pathways that saturate with (mask) contrast. (2) The target is processed by a mechanism that is subject to surround suppression at low target contrasts, but a less sensitive mechanism that is immune from surround suppression ‘breaks through’ at higher target contrasts. If the mask can be made less potent, then masking functions should shift downwards, and sideways for the two accounts, respectively. We manipulated the potency of the mask by varying the size of the hole in a parallel doughnut mask. The results provided strong evidence for the first account but not the second. On the view that response compression becomes more severe progressing up the visual pathway, our results suggest that superimposed cross-orientation suppression precedes orientation tuned surround suppression. These results also reveal a previously unrecognized similarity between surround suppression and crowding (Pelli, Palomares, & Majaj, 2004).

The influence of fixation points on contrast detection and discrimination of patches of grating: Masking and facilitation

The use of fixation points (FPs) in visual psychophysics is common practice, though the costs and benefits of different fixation regimens have not been compared. Here we investigate the influence of several different types of FP configurations on the contrast detection of patches of sine-wave gratings. We find that for small targets (1°), the addition of a superimposed central FP can increase thresholds by a factor of 1.3 (2.5 dB) in comparison with no FP, and a factor of 1.5 (3.6 dB) in comparison with FPs that surround the target. These results are consistent with (i) a suppressive influence on the central region of the target from a central FP, and (ii) facilitatory influences from surrounding FPs. Our analysis of the slope of the psychometric function suggests that the facilitatory influence is not due to reduction of uncertainty. Plausible candidate causes for the facilitation are: (i) sensory interactions, (ii) aids to ocular accommodation and convergence, (iii) a reduction in eye-movements and (iv) more accurate placement of the observer’s window of attention. Masking by a central FP is not found for the suprathreshold task of contrast discrimination, suggesting that the masking effects of pedestal and FP do not combine linearly. This means that estimates of the level of masking produced by a contrast pedestal can depend on the details of the fixation point.

Neuronal convergence in early contrast vision: binocular summation is followed by response nonlinearity and area summation

We assessed summation of contrast across eyes and area at detection threshold ( C t). Stimuli were sine-wave gratings (2.5 c/deg) spatially modulated by cosine- and anticosine-phase raised plaids (0.5 c/deg components oriented at ±45°). When presented dichoptically the signal regions were interdigitated across eyes but produced a smooth continuous grating following their linear binocular sum. The average summation ratio ( C t1/([ C t1+2]) for this stimulus pair was 1.64 (4.3 dB). This was only slightly less than the binocular summation found for the same patch type presented to both eyes, and the area summation found for the two different patch types presented to the same eye. We considered 192 model architectures containing each of the following four elements in all possible orders: (i) linear summation or a MAX operator across eyes, (ii) linear summation or a MAX operator across area, (iii) linear or accelerating contrast transduction, and (iv) additive Gaussian, stochastic noise. Formal equivalences reduced this to 62 different models. The most successful four-element model was: linear summation across eyes followed by nonlinear contrast transduction, linear summation across area, and late noise. Model performance was enhanced when additional nonlinearities were placed before binocular summation and after area summation. The implications for models of probability summation and uncertainty are discussed.

A common contrast pooling rule for suppression within and between the eyes

Recent work has revealed multiple pathways for cross-orientation suppression in cat and human vision. In particular, ipsiocular and interocular pathways appear to assert their influence before binocular summation in human but have different (1) spatial tuning, (2) temporal dependencies, and (3) adaptation after-effects. Here we use mask components that fall outside the excitatory passband of the detecting mechanism to investigate the rules for pooling multiple mask components within these pathways. We measured psychophysical contrast masking functions for vertical 1 cycle/deg sine-wave gratings in the presence of left or right oblique (645 deg) 3 cycles/deg mask gratings with contrast C%, or a plaid made from their sum, where each component (i) had contrast 0.5Ci%. Masks and targets were presented to two eyes (binocular), one eye (monoptic), or different eyes (dichoptic). Binocular-masking functions superimposed when plotted against C, but in the monoptic and dichoptic conditions, the grating produced slightly more suppression than the plaid when Ci $ 16%. We tested contrast gain control models involving two types of contrast combination on the denominator: (1) spatial pooling of the mask after a local nonlinearity (to calculate either root mean square contrast or energy) and (2) "linear suppression" (Holmes & Meese, 2004, Journal of Vision 4, 1080–1089), involving the linear sum of the mask component contrasts. Monoptic and dichoptic masking were typically better fit by the spatial pooling models, but binocular masking was not: it demanded strict linear summation of the Michelson contrast across mask orientation. Another scheme, in which suppressive pooling followed compressive contrast responses to the mask components (e.g., oriented cortical cells), was ruled out by all of our data. We conclude that the different processes that underlie monoptic and dichoptic masking use the same type of contrast pooling within their respective suppressive fields, but the effects do not sum to predict the binocular case.