Binocular interaction:Contrast matching and contrast discrimination are predicted by the same model

How do signals from the 2 eyes combine and interact? Our recent work has challenged earlier schemes in which monocular contrast signals are subject to square-law transduction followed by summation across eyes and binocular gain control. Much more successful was a new 'two-stage' model in which the initial transducer was almost linear and contrast gain control occurred both pre- and post-binocular summation. Here we extend that work by: (i) exploring the two-dimensional stimulus space (defined by left- and right-eye contrasts) more thoroughly, and (ii) performing contrast discrimination and contrast matching tasks for the same stimuli. Twenty-five base-stimuli made from 1 c/deg patches of horizontal grating, were defined by the factorial combination of 5 contrasts for the left eye (0.3-32%) with five contrasts for the right eye (0.3-32%). Other than in contrast, the gratings in the two eyes were identical. In a 2IFC discrimination task, the base-stimuli were masks (pedestals), where the contrast increment was presented to one eye only. In a matching task, the base-stimuli were standards to which observers matched the contrast of either a monocular or binocular test grating. In the model, discrimination depends on the local gradient of the observer's internal contrast-response function, while matching equates the magnitude (rather than gradient) of response to the test and standard. With all model parameters fixed by previous work, the two-stage model successfully predicted both the discrimination and the matching data and was much more successful than linear or quadratic binocular summation models. These results show that performance measures and perception (contrast discrimination and contrast matching) can be understood in the same theoretical framework for binocular contrast vision. © 2007 VSP.

A bi-objective weighted model for improving the discrimination power in MCDEA

Lack of discrimination power and poor weight dispersion remain major issues in Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). Since the initial multiple criteria DEA (MCDEA) model developed in the late 1990s, only goal programming approaches; that is, the GPDEA-CCR and GPDEA-BCC were introduced for solving the said problems in a multi-objective framework. We found GPDEA models to be invalid and demonstrate that our proposed bi-objective multiple criteria DEA (BiO-MCDEA) outperforms the GPDEA models in the aspects of discrimination power and weight dispersion, as well as requiring less computational codes. An application of energy dependency among 25 European Union member countries is further used to describe the efficacy of our approach. © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Perception of global image contrast is predicted by the same spatial integration model of gain control as detection and discrimination

How are the image statistics of global image contrast computed? We answered this by using a contrast-matching task for checkerboard configurations of ‘battenberg’ micro-patterns where the contrasts and spatial spreads of interdigitated pairs of micro-patterns were adjusted independently. Test stimuli were 20 × 20 arrays with various sized cluster widths, matched to standard patterns of uniform contrast. When one of the test patterns contained a pattern with much higher contrast than the other, that determined global pattern contrast, as in a max() operation. Crucially, however, the full matching functions had a curious intermediate region where low contrast additions for one pattern to intermediate contrasts of the other caused a paradoxical reduction in perceived global contrast. None of the following models predicted this: RMS, energy, linear sum, max, Legge and Foley. However, a gain control model incorporating wide-field integration and suppression of nonlinear contrast responses predicted the results with no free parameters. This model was derived from experiments on summation of contrast at threshold, and masking and summation effects in dipper functions. Those experiments were also inconsistent with the failed models above. Thus, we conclude that our contrast gain control model (Meese & Summers, 2007) describes a fundamental operation in human contrast vision.

Contrast and lustre:a model that accounts for eleven different forms of contrast discrimination in binocular vision

Our goal here is a more complete understanding of how information about luminance contrast is encoded and used by the binocular visual system. In two-interval forced-choice experiments we assessed observers' ability to discriminate changes in contrast that could be an increase or decrease of contrast in one or both eyes, or an increase in one eye coupled with a decrease in the other (termed IncDec). The base or pedestal contrasts were either in-phase or out-of-phase in the two eyes. The opposed changes in the IncDec condition did not cancel each other out, implying that along with binocular summation, information is also available from mechanisms that do not sum the two eyes' inputs. These might be monocular mechanisms. With a binocular pedestal, monocular increments of contrast were much easier to see than monocular decrements. These findings suggest that there are separate binocular (B) and monocular (L,R) channels, but only the largest of the three responses, max(L,B,R), is available to perception and decision. Results from contrast discrimination and contrast matching tasks were described very accurately by this model. Stimuli, data, and model responses can all be visualized in a common binocular contrast space, allowing a more direct comparison between models and data. Some results with out-of-phase pedestals were not accounted for by the max model of contrast coding, but were well explained by an extended model in which gratings of opposite polarity create the sensation of lustre. Observers can discriminate changes in lustre alongside changes in contrast.

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]

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.

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.

A smart sensing platform for the discrimination of human movement

This thesis documents the design, implementation and testing of a smart sensing platform that is able to discriminate between differences or small changes in a persons walking. The distributive tactile sensing method is used to monitor the deflection of the platform surface using just a small number of sensors and, through the use of neural networks, infer the characteristics of the object in contact with the surface. The thesis first describes the development of a mathematical model which uses a novel method to track the position of a moving load as it passes over the smart sensing surface. Experimental methods are then described for using the platform to track the position of swinging pendulum in three dimensions. It is demonstrated that the method can be extended to that of real-time measurement of balance and sway of a person during quiet standing. Current classification methods are then investigated for use in the classification of different gait patterns, in particular to identify individuals by their unique gait pattern. Based on these observations, a novel algorithm is developed that is able to discriminate between abnormal and affected gait. This algorithm, using the distributive tactile sensing method, was found to have greater accuracy than other methods investigated and was designed to be able to cope with any type of gait variation. The system developed in this thesis has applications in the area of medical diagnostics, either as an initial screening tool for detecting walking disorders or to be able to automatically detect changes in gait over time. The system could also be used as a discrete biometric identification method, for example identifying office workers as they pass over the surface.

Bifurcation and stability in a low-dimensional model for multiple-frequency mode-locked lasers

Recent theoretical investigations have demonstrated that the stability of mode-locked solutions of multiple frequency channels depends on the degree of inhomogeneity in gain saturation. In this article, these results are generalized to determine conditions on each of the system parameters necessary for both the stability and the existence of mode-locked pulse solutions for an arbitrary number of frequency channels. In particular, we find that the parameters governing saturable intensity discrimination and gain inhomogeneity in the laser cavity also determine the position of bifurcations of solution types. These bifurcations are completely characterized in terms of these parameters. In addition to influencing the stability of mode-locked solutions, we determine a balance between cubic gain and quintic loss, which is necessary for the existence of solutions as well. Furthermore, we determine the critical degree of inhomogeneous gain broadening required to support pulses in multiple-frequency channels. © 2010 The American Physical Society.