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.

High level data fusion

We address the question of how to obtain effective fusion of identification information such that it is robust to the quality of this information. As well as technical issues data fusion is encumbered with a collection of (potentially confusing) practical considerations. These considerations are described during the early chapters in which a framework for data fusion is developed. Following this process of diversification it becomes clear that the original question is not well posed and requires more precise specification. We use the framework to focus on some of the technical issues relevant to the question being addressed. We show that fusion of hard decisions through use of an adaptive version of the maximum a posteriori decision rule yields acceptable performance. Better performance is possible using probability level fusion as long as the probabilities are accurate. Of particular interest is the prevalence of overconfidence and the effect it has on fused performance. The production of accurate probabilities from poor quality data forms the latter part of the thesis. Two approaches are taken. Firstly the probabilities may be moderated at source (either analytically or numerically). Secondly, the probabilities may be transformed at the fusion centre. In each case an improvement in fused performance is demonstrated. We therefore conclude that in order to obtain robust fusion care should be taken to model the probabilities accurately; either at the source or centrally.