Fourth-root summation of contrast over area:no end in sight when spatially inhomogeneous sensitivity is compensated by a witch's hat

Measurements of area summation for luminance-modulated stimuli are typically confounded by variations in sensitivity across the retina. Recently we conducted a detailed analysis of sensitivity across the visual field (Baldwin et al, 2012) and found it to be well-described by a bilinear “witch’s hat” function: sensitivity declines rapidly over the first 8 cycles or so, more gently thereafter. Here we multiplied luminance-modulated stimuli (4 c/deg gratings and “Swiss cheeses”) by the inverse of the witch’s hat function to compensate for the inhomogeneity. This revealed summation functions that were straight lines (on double log axes) with a slope of -1/4 extending to ≥33 cycles, demonstrating fourth-root summation of contrast over a wider area than has previously been reported for the central retina. Fourth-root summation is typically attributed to probability summation, but recent studies have rejected that interpretation in favour of a noisy energy model that performs local square-law transduction of the signal, adds noise at each location of the target and then sums over signal area. Modelling shows our results to be consistent with a wide field application of such a contrast integrator. We reject a probability summation model, a quadratic model and a matched template model of our results under the assumptions of signal detection theory. We also reject the high threshold theory of contrast detection under the assumption of probability summation over area.

Crossover evaluation of silicone hydrogel daily disposable contact lenses

PURPOSE: To assess the surface tear breakup time and clinical performance of three daily disposable silicone hydrogel contact lenses over 16 hours of wear. METHODS: Thirty-nine patients (mean [±SD] age, 22.1 [±3.5] years) bilaterally wore (narafilcon A, filcon II-3, and delefilcon A) contact lenses in a prospective, randomized, masked, 1-week crossover clinical trial. Tear film was assessed by the tear meniscus height (TMH), ocular/contact lens surface temperature dynamics, and lens surface noninvasive breakup time at 8, 12, and 16 hours of wear. Clinical performance and ocular physiology were assessed by subjective questionnaire, by high-/low-contrast logMAR (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution) acuity, and through bulbar and limbal hyperemia grading. Corneal and conjunctival staining were assessed after lens removal. RESULTS: Delefilcon A demonstrated a longer noninvasive breakup time (13.4 [±4.4] seconds) than filcon II-3 (11.6 [±3.7] seconds; p < 0.001) and narafilcon A (12.3 [±3.7] seconds; p < 0.001). A greater TMH (0.35 [±0.11] mm) was shown by delefilcon A than filcon II-3 (0.32 [±0.10] seconds; p = 0.016). Delefilcon A showed less corneal staining after 16 hours of lens wear (0.7 [±0.6] Efron grade) than filcon II-3 (1.1 [±0.7]; p < 0.001) and narafilcon A (0.9 [±0.7]; p = 0.031). Time was not a significant factor for prelens tear film stability (F = 0.594, p = 0.555) or TMH (F = 0.632, p = 0.534). Lens brand did not affect temperature (F = 1.220, p = 0.308), but it decreased toward the end of the day (F = 19.497, p < 0.001). Comfort, quality of vision, visual acuity and contrast acuity, and limbal grading were similar between the lens brands but decreased with time during the day (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The tear breakup time over the contact lens surface differed between lens types and may have a role in protecting the ocular surface.

Investigating the utility of clinical assessments to predict success with presbyopic contact lens correction

PURPOSE: To determine the utility of a range of clinical and non-clinical indicators to aid the initial selection of the optimum presbyopic contact lens. In addition, to assess whether lens preference was influenced by the visual performance compared to the other designs trialled (intra-subject) or compared to participants who preferred other designs (inter-subject). METHODS: A double-masked randomised crossover trial of Air Optix Aqua multifocal, PureVision 2 for Presbyopia, Acuvue OASYS for Presbyopia, Biofinity multifocal and monovision was conducted on 35 presbyopes (54.3±6.2years). Participant lifestyle, personality, pupil characteristics and aberrometry were assessed prior to lens fitting. After 4 weeks of wear, high and low contrast visual acuity (VA) under photopic and mesopic conditions, reading speed, Near Activity Visual Questionnaire (NAVQ) rating, subjective quality-of-vision scoring, defocus curves, stereopsis, halometry, aberrometry and ocular physiology were quantified. RESULTS: After trialling all the lenses, preference was mixed (n=12 Biofinity, n=10 monovision, n=7 Purevision, n=4 Air Optix Aqua, n=2 Oasys). Lens preference was not dependent on personality (F=1.182, p=0.323) or the hours spent working at near (p=0.535) or intermediate (p=0.759) distances. No intersubject or strong intrasubject relationships emerged between lens preference and reading speed, NAVQ rating, halo size, aberrometry or ocular physiology (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Participant lifestyle and personality, ocular optics, contact lens visual performance and ocular physiology provided poor indicators of the preferred lens type after 4 weeks of wear. This is confounded by the wide range of task visual demands of presbyopes and the limited optical differences between current multifocal contact lens designs.

The relationship between CA/C ratio and individual differences in dynamic accommodative responses while viewing stereoscopic images

The oculomotor synergy as expressed by the CA/C and AC/A ratios was investigated to examine its influence on our previous observation that whereas convergence responses to stereoscopic images are generally stable, some individuals exhibit significant accommodative overshoot. Using a modified video refraction unit while viewing a stereoscopic LCD, accommodative and convergence responses to balanced and unbalanced vergence and focal stimuli (BVFS and UBVFS) were measured. Accommodative overshoot of at least 0.3 D was found in 3 out of 8 subjects for UBVFS. The accommodative response differential (RD) was taken to be the difference between the initial response and the subsequent mean static steady-state response. Without overshoot, RD was quantified by finding the initial response component. A mean RD of 0.11 +/- 0.27 D was found for the 1.0 D step UBVFS condition. The mean RD for the BVFS was 0.00 +/- 0.17 D. There was a significant positive correlation between CA/C ratio and RD (r = +0.75, n = 8, p <0.05) for only UBVFS. We propose that inter-subject variation in RD is influenced by the CA/C ratio as follows: an initial convergence response, induced by disparity of the image, generates convergence-driven accommodation commensurate with the CA/C ratio; the associated transient defocus subsequently decays to a balanced position between defocus-induced and convergence-induced accommodations.

Vergence control across saccades in dyslexic adults

Many aspects of vision have been investigated in developmental dyslexia. Some research suggests deficits in vergence control (e.g. Buzzelli, 1991, Optom. Vision Sci. 68, 842±846), although ability to control vergence across saccades has not yet been investigated. We have explored this question indirectly using Enright's (1996 Vision Res. 36, 307±312.) sequential stereopsis task. The task requires observers to set two adjacent targets (whose textures cannot be resolved simultaneously if either is fixated) to appear equi-distant. Enright has argued that sequential stereopsis stereoacuity thresholds offer an indication of vergence control across saccades. We report two experiments using a total of 17 dyslexic and 18 control adults. Performance was measured on a sequential stereopsis task and an ordinary `simultaneous' stereopsis task. No significant differences between groups were found. However, whereas practice of the sequential task lowered control group thresholds on the simultaneous task, for the dyslexic group it significantly raised thresholds, suggesting that visual fatigue is especially important in investigations of visual functions in dyslexia. Although the small samples used limit conclusions at this stage, the main sequential stereopsis results suggest that, if Enright is correct, dyslexic adults can show normal vergence control across saccades.

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]

Perceiving edge contrast

We have shown previously that a template model for edge perception successfully predicts perceived blur for a variety of edge profiles (Georgeson, 2001 Journal of Vision 1 438a; Barbieri-Hesse and Georgeson, 2002 Perception 31 Supplement, 54). This study concerns the perceived contrast of edges. Our model spatially differentiates the luminance profile, half-wave rectifies this first derivative, and then differentiates again to create the edge's 'signature'. The spatial scale of the signature is evaluated by filtering it with a set of Gaussian derivative operators. This process finds the correlation between the signature and each operator kernel at each position. These kernels therefore act as templates, and the position and scale of the best-fitting template indicate the position and blur of the edge. Our previous finding, that reducing edge contrast reduces perceived blur, can be explained by replacing the half-wave rectifier with a smooth, biased rectifier function (May and Georgeson, 2003 Perception 32 388; May and Georgeson, 2003 Perception 32 Supplement, 46). With the half-wave rectifier, the peak template response R to a Gaussian edge with contrast C and scale s is given by: R=Cp-1/4s-3/2. Hence, edge contrast can be estimated from response magnitude and blur: C=Rp1/4s3/2. Use of this equation with the modified rectifier predicts that perceived contrast will decrease with increasing blur, particularly at low contrasts. Contrast-matching experiments supported this prediction. In addition, the model correctly predicts the perceived contrast of Gaussian edges modified either by spatial truncation or by the addition of a ramp.

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.

Induced gamma activity in primary visual cortex is related to luminance and not color contrast: an MEG study

Gamma activity in the visual cortex has been reported in numerous EEG studies of coherent and illusory figures. A dominant theme of many such findings has been that temporal synchronization in the gamma band in response to these identifiable percepts is related to perceptual binding of the common features of the stimulus. In two recent studies using magnetoencephalography (MEG) and the beamformer analysis technique, we have shown that the magnitude of induced gamma activity in visual cortex is dependent upon independent stimulus features such as spatial frequency and contrast. In particular, we showed that induced gamma activity is maximal in response to gratings of 3 cycles per degree (3 cpd) of high luminance contrast. In this work, we set out to examine stimulus contrast further by using isoluminant red/green gratings that possess color but not luminance contrast using the same cohort of subjects. We found no induced gamma activity in V1 or visual cortex in response to the isoluminant gratings in these subjects who had previously shown strong induced gamma activity in V1 for luminance contrast gratings.

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.

Contextual modulation involves suppression and facilitation from the center and the surround

In psychophysics, cross-orientation suppression (XOS) and cross-orientation facilitation (XOF) have been measured by investigating mask configuration on the detection threshold of a centrally placed patch of sine-wave grating. Much of the evidence for XOS and XOF comes from studies using low and high spatial frequencies, respectively, where the interactions are thought to arise from within (XOS) and outside (XOF) the footprint of the classical receptive field. We address the relation between these processes here by measuring the effects of various sizes of superimposed and annular cross-oriented masks on detection thresholds at two spatial scales (1 and 7 c/deg) and on contrast increment thresholds at 7 c/deg. A functional model of our results indicates the following (1) XOS and XOF both occur for superimposed and annular masks. (2) XOS declines with spatial frequency but XOF does not. (3) The spatial extent of the interactions does not scale with spatial frequency, meaning that surround-effects are seen primarily at high spatial frequencies. (4) There are two distinct processes involved in XOS: direct divisive suppression and modulation of self-suppression. (5) Whether XOS or XOF wins out depends upon their relative weights and mask contrast. These results prompt enquiry into the effect of spatial frequency at the single-cell level and place new constraints on image-processing models of early visual processing. © ARVO.

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.

Grating and plaid masks indicate linear summation in a contrast gain pool

In human vision, the response to luminance contrast at each small region in the image is controlled by a more global process where suppressive signals are pooled over spatial frequency and orientation bands. But what rules govern summation among stimulus components within the suppressive pool? We addressed this question by extending a pedestal plus pattern mask paradigm to use a stimulus with up to three mask components: a vertical 1 c/deg pedestal, plus pattern masks made from either a grating (orientation = -45°) or a plaid (orientation = ±45°), with component spatial frequency of 3 c/deg. The overall contrast of both types of pattern mask was fixed at 20% (i.e., plaid component contrasts were 10%). We found that both of these masks transformed conventional dipper functions (threshold vs. pedestal contrast with no pattern mask) in exactly the same way: The dipper region was raised and shifted to the right, but the dipper handles superimposed. This equivalence of the two pattern masks indicates that contrast summation between the plaid components was perfectly linear prior to the masking stage. Furthermore, the pattern masks did not drive the detecting mechanism above its detection threshold because they did not abolish facilitation by the pedestal (Foley, 1994). Therefore, the pattern masking could not be attributed to within-channel masking, suggesting that linear summation of contrast signals takes place within a suppressive contrast gain pool. We present a quantitative model of the effects and discuss the implications for neurophysiological models of the process. © 2004 ARVO.