Theory and data for area summation of contrast with and without uncertainty:evidence for a noisy energy model

Contrast sensitivity improves with the area of a sine-wave grating, but why? Here we assess this phenomenon against contemporary models involving spatial summation, probability summation, uncertainty, and stochastic noise. Using a two-interval forced-choice procedure we measured contrast sensitivity for circular patches of sine-wave gratings with various diameters that were blocked or interleaved across trials to produce low and high extrinsic uncertainty, respectively. Summation curves were steep initially, becoming shallower thereafter. For the smaller stimuli, sensitivity was slightly worse for the interleaved design than for the blocked design. Neither area nor blocking affected the slope of the psychometric function. We derived model predictions for noisy mechanisms and extrinsic uncertainty that was either low or high. The contrast transducer was either linear (c1.0) or nonlinear (c2.0), and pooling was either linear or a MAX operation. There was either no intrinsic uncertainty, or it was fixed or proportional to stimulus size. Of these 10 canonical models, only the nonlinear transducer with linear pooling (the noisy energy model) described the main forms of the data for both experimental designs. We also show how a cross-correlator can be modified to fit our results and provide a contemporary presentation of the relation between summation and the slope of the psychometric function.

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.

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.