On the relation between dichoptic masking and binocular rivalry

When our two eyes view incompatible images, the brain invokes suppressive processes to inhibit one image, and favor the other. Two phenomena are typically observed: dichoptic masking (reduced sensitivity to one image) for brief presentations, and binocular rivalry (alternation between the two images), over longer exposures. However, it is not clear if these two phenomena arise from a common suppressive process. We investigated this by measuring both threshold elevation in simultaneous dichoptic masking and mean percept durations in rivalry, whilst varying relative stimulus orientation. Masking and rivalry showed significant correlations, such that strong masking was associated with long dominance durations. A second experiment suggested that individual differences across both measures are also correlated. These findings are consistent with varying the magnitude of interocular suppression in computational models of both rivalry and masking, and imply the existence of a common suppressive process. Since dichoptic masking has been localised to the monocular neurons of V1, this is a plausible first stage of binocular rivalry.

Interocular masking and summation indicate two stages of divisive contrast gain control

Our understanding of early spatial vision owes much to contrast masking and summation paradigms. In particular, the deep region of facilitation at low mask contrasts is thought to indicate a rapidly accelerating contrast transducer (eg a square-law or greater). In experiment 1, we tapped an early stage of this process by measuring monocular and binocular thresholds for patches of 1 cycle deg-1 sine-wave grating. Threshold ratios were around 1.7, implying a nearly linear transducer with an exponent around 1.3. With this form of transducer, two previous models (Legge, 1984 Vision Research 24 385 - 394; Meese et al, 2004 Perception 33 Supplement, 41) failed to fit the monocular, binocular, and dichoptic masking functions measured in experiment 2. However, a new model with two-stages of divisive gain control fits the data very well. Stage 1 incorporates nearly linear monocular transducers (to account for the high level of binocular summation and slight dichoptic facilitation), and monocular and interocular suppression (to fit the profound 42 Oral presentations: Spatial vision Thursday dichoptic masking). Stage 2 incorporates steeply accelerating transduction (to fit the deep regions of monocular and binocular facilitation), and binocular summation and suppression (to fit the monocular and binocular masking). With all model parameters fixed from the discrimination thresholds, we examined the slopes of the psychometric functions. The monocular and binocular slopes were steep (Weibull ߘ3-4) at very low mask contrasts and shallow (ߘ1.2) at all higher contrasts, as predicted by all three models. The dichoptic slopes were steep (ߘ3-4) at very low contrasts, and very steep (ß>5.5) at high contrasts (confirming Meese et al, loco cit.). A crucial new result was that intermediate dichoptic mask contrasts produced shallow slopes (ߘ2). Only the two-stage model predicted the observed pattern of slope variation, so providing good empirical support for a two-stage process of binocular contrast transduction. [Supported by EPSRC GR/S74515/01]

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.

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.

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.

Area summation and masking

At detection threshold, sensitivity improves as the area of a test grating increases, but not when the test is placed on a pedestal and the task becomes contrast discrimination (G. E. Legge, & J. M. Foley, 1980). This study asks whether the abolition of area summation is specific to the situation where mask and test stimuli have the same spatial frequency and orientation ("within-channel" masking) or is more general, also occurring when mask and test stimuli are very different ("cross-channel" masking). Threshold versus contrast masking functions were measured where the test and mask were either both small (SS), both large (LL), or small and large, respectively (SL). For within-channel masking, facilitation and area summation were found at low mask contrasts, but the results for SS and LL converged at intermediate contrasts and above, replicating Legge and Foley (1980). For all three observers, less facilitation was found for SL than for SS. For cross-channel masking, area summation occurred across the entire masking function and results for SS and SL were identical. The results for the entire data set were well fit by an extended version of a contrast masking model (J. M. Foley, 1994) in which the weights of excitatory and suppressive surround terms were free parameters. I conclude that (i) there is no empirical abolition of area summation for cross-channel masking, (ii) within-channel area summation can be abolished empirically without being disabled in the model, (iii) observers are able to restrict the area of spatial integration, but not suppression, (iv) extending a cross-channel mask to the surround has no effect on contrast detection, and (v) there is a formal similarity between area summation and contrast adaptation. © 2004 ARVO.

Adaptation and gain pool summation:Alternative models and masking data

Foley [J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 11 (1994) 1710] has proposed an influential psychophysical model of masking in which mask components in a contrast gain pool are raised to an exponent before summation and divisive inhibition. We tested this summation rule in experiments in which contrast detection thresholds were measured for a vertical 1 c/deg (or 2 c/deg) sine-wave component in the presence of a 3 c/deg (or 6 c/deg) mask that had either a single component oriented at -45° or a pair of components oriented at ±45°. Contrary to the predictions of Foley's model 3, we found that for masks of moderate contrast and above, threshold elevation was predicted by linear summation of the mask components in the inhibitory stage of the contrast gain pool. We built this feature into two new models, referred to as the early adaptation model and the hybrid model. In the early adaptation model, contrast adaptation controls a threshold-like nonlinearity on the output of otherwise linear pathways that provide the excitatory and inhibitory inputs to a gain control stage. The hybrid model involves nonlinear and nonadaptable routes to excitatory and inhibitory stages as well as an adaptable linear route. With only six free parameters, both models provide excellent fits to the masking and adaptation data of Foley and Chen [Vision Res. 37 (1997) 2779] but unlike Foley and Chen's model, are able to do so with only one adaptation parameter. However, only the hybrid model is able to capture the features of Foley's (1994) pedestal plus orthogonal fixed mask data. We conclude that (1) linear summation of inhibitory components is a feature of contrast masking, and (2) that the main aftereffect of spatial adaptation on contrast increment thresholds can be assigned to a single site. © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Orientation masking and cross-orientation suppression (XOS):implications for estimates of channel bandwidth

Most contemporary models of spatial vision include a cross-oriented route to suppression (masking from a broadly tuned inhibitory pool), which is most potent at low spatial and high temporal frequencies (T. S. Meese & D. J. Holmes, 2007). The influence of this pathway can elevate orientation-masking functions without exciting the target mechanism, and because early psychophysical estimates of filter bandwidth did not accommodate this, it is likely that they have been overestimated for this corner of stimulus space. Here we show that a transient 40% contrast mask causes substantial binocular threshold elevation for a transient vertical target, and this declines from a mask orientation of 0° to about 40° (indicating tuning), and then more gently to 90°, where it remains at a factor of ∼4. We also confirm that cross-orientation masking is diminished or abolished at high spatial frequencies and for sustained temporal modulation. We fitted a simple model of pedestal masking and cross-orientation suppression (XOS) to our data and those of G. C. Phillips and H. R. Wilson (1984) and found the dependency of orientation bandwidth on spatial frequency to be much less than previously supposed. An extension of our linear spatial pooling model of contrast gain control and dilution masking (T. S. Meese & R. J. Summers, 2007) is also shown to be consistent with our results using filter bandwidths of ±20°. Both models include tightly and broadly tuned components of divisive suppression. More generally, because XOS and/or dilution masking can affect the shape of orientation-masking curves, we caution that variations in bandwidth estimates might reflect variations in processes that have nothing to do with filter bandwidth.

Cross-orientation masking is speed invariant between ocular pathways but speed dependent within them

In human (D. H. Baker, T. S. Meese, & R. J. Summers, 2007b) and in cat (B. Li, M. R. Peterson, J. K. Thompson, T. Duong, & R. D. Freeman, 2005; F. Sengpiel & V. Vorobyov, 2005) there are at least two routes to cross-orientation suppression (XOS): a broadband, non-adaptable, monocular (within-eye) pathway and a more narrowband, adaptable interocular (between the eyes) pathway. We further characterized these two routes psychophysically by measuring the weight of suppression across spatio-temporal frequency for cross-oriented pairs of superimposed flickering Gabor patches. Masking functions were normalized to unmasked detection thresholds and fitted by a two-stage model of contrast gain control (T. S. Meese, M. A. Georgeson, & D. H. Baker, 2006) that was developed to accommodate XOS. The weight of monocular suppression was a power function of the scalar quantity ‘speed’ (temporal-frequency/spatial-frequency). This weight can be expressed as the ratio of non-oriented magno- and parvo-like mechanisms, permitting a fast-acting, early locus, as befits the urgency for action associated with high retinal speeds. In contrast, dichoptic-masking functions superimposed. Overall, this (i) provides further evidence for dissociation between the two forms of XOS in humans, and (ii) indicates that the monocular and interocular varieties of XOS are space/time scale-dependent and scale-invariant, respectively. This suggests an image-processing role for interocular XOS that is tailored to natural image statistics—very different from that of the scale-dependent (speed-dependent) monocular variety.

Paradoxical psychometric functions ("swan functions") are explained by dilution masking in four stimulus dimensions

The visual system dissects the retinal image into millions of local analyses along numerous visual dimensions. However, our perceptions of the world are not fragmentary, so further processes must be involved in stitching it all back together. Simply summing up the responses would not work because this would convey an increase in image contrast with an increase in the number of mechanisms stimulated. Here, we consider a generic model of signal combination and counter-suppression designed to address this problem. The model is derived and tested for simple stimulus pairings (e.g. A + B), but is readily extended over multiple analysers. The model can account for nonlinear contrast transduction, dilution masking, and signal combination at threshold and above. It also predicts nonmonotonic psychometric functions where sensitivity to signal A in the presence of pedestal B first declines with increasing signal strength (paradoxically dropping below 50% correct in two-interval forced choice), but then rises back up again, producing a contour that follows the wings and neck of a swan. We looked for and found these "swan" functions in four different stimulus dimensions (ocularity, space, orientation, and time), providing some support for our proposal.

Formant-Frequency Variation and Informational Masking of Speech by Extraneous Formants : Evidence Against Dynamic and Speech-Specific Acoustical Constraints

How speech is separated perceptually from other speech remains poorly understood. Recent research indicates that the ability of an extraneous formant to impair intelligibility depends on the variation of its frequency contour. This study explored the effects of manipulating the depth and pattern of that variation. Three formants (F1+F2+F3) constituting synthetic analogues of natural sentences were distributed across the 2 ears, together with a competitor for F2 (F2C) that listeners must reject to optimize recognition (left = F1+F2C; right = F2+F3). The frequency contours of F1 − F3 were each scaled to 50% of their natural depth, with little effect on intelligibility. Competitors were created either by inverting the frequency contour of F2 about its geometric mean (a plausibly speech-like pattern) or using a regular and arbitrary frequency contour (triangle wave, not plausibly speech-like) matched to the average rate and depth of variation for the inverted F2C. Adding a competitor typically reduced intelligibility; this reduction depended on the depth of F2C variation, being greatest for 100%-depth, intermediate for 50%-depth, and least for 0%-depth (constant) F2Cs. This suggests that competitor impact depends on overall depth of frequency variation, not depth relative to that for the target formants. The absence of tuning (i.e., no minimum in intelligibility for the 50% case) suggests that the ability to reject an extraneous formant does not depend on similarity in the depth of formant-frequency variation. Furthermore, triangle-wave competitors were as effective as their more speech-like counterparts, suggesting that the selection of formants from the ensemble also does not depend on speech-specific constraints.

Rhythmic masking release:effects of asynchrony, temporal overlap, harmonic relations, and source separation on cross-spectral grouping

The rhythm created by spacing a series of brief tones in a regular pattern can be disguised by interleaving identical distractors at irregular intervals. The disguised rhythm can be unmasked if the distractors are allocated to a separate stream from the rhythm by integration with temporally overlapping captors. Listeners identified which of 2 rhythms was presented, and the accuracy and rated clarity of their judgment was used to estimate the fusion of the distractors and captors. The extent of fusion depended primarily on onset asynchrony and degree of temporal overlap. Harmonic relations had some influence, but only an extreme difference in spatial location was effective (dichotic presentation). Both preattentive and attentionally driven processes governed performance. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Formant-frequency variation and informational masking of speech by extraneous formants:evidence against dynamic and speech-specific acoustical constraints

How speech is separated perceptually from other speech remains poorly understood. Recent research indicates that the ability of an extraneous formant to impair intelligibility depends on the variation of its frequency contour. This study explored the effects of manipulating the depth and pattern of that variation. Three formants (F1+F2+F3) constituting synthetic analogues of natural sentences were distributed across the 2 ears, together with a competitor for F2 (F2C) that listeners must reject to optimize recognition (left = F1+F2C; right = F2+F3). The frequency contours of F1 - F3 were each scaled to 50% of their natural depth, with little effect on intelligibility. Competitors were created either by inverting the frequency contour of F2 about its geometric mean (a plausibly speech-like pattern) or using a regular and arbitrary frequency contour (triangle wave, not plausibly speech-like) matched to the average rate and depth of variation for the inverted F2C. Adding a competitor typically reduced intelligibility; this reduction depended on the depth of F2C variation, being greatest for 100%-depth, intermediate for 50%-depth, and least for 0%-depth (constant) F2Cs. This suggests that competitor impact depends on overall depth of frequency variation, not depth relative to that for the target formants. The absence of tuning (i.e., no minimum in intelligibility for the 50% case) suggests that the ability to reject an extraneous formant does not depend on similarity in the depth of formant-frequency variation. Furthermore, triangle-wave competitors were as effective as their more speech-like counterparts, suggesting that the selection of formants from the ensemble also does not depend on speech-specific constraints. © 2014 The Author(s).

Development of a passive MEG stimulus for measurement of the binaural masking level difference

The ability to hear a target signal over background noise is an important aspect of efficient hearing in everyday situations. This mechanism depends on binaural hearing whenever there are differences in the inter-aural timing of inputs from the noise and the signal. Impairments in binaural hearing may underlie some auditory processing disorders, for example temporal-lobe epilepsies. The binaural masking level difference (BMLD) measures the advantage in detecting a tone whose inter-aural phase differs from that of the masking noise. BMLD’s are typically estimated psychophysically, but this is challenging in children or those with cognitive impairments. The aim of this doctorate is to design a passive measure of BMLD using magnetoencephalography (MEG) and test this in adults, children and patients with different types of epilepsy. The stimulus consists of Gaussian background noise with 500-Hz tones presented binaurally either in-phase or 180° out-of-phase between the ears. Source modelling provides the N1m amplitude for the in-phase and out-of-phase tones, representing the extent of signal perception over background noise. The passive BMLD stimulus is successfully used as a measure of binaural hearing capabilities in participants who would otherwise be unable to undertake a psychophysical task.