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.

Improving discrimination in data envelopment analysis:some practical suggestions

In some contexts data envelopment analysis (DEA) gives poor discrimination on the performance of units. While this may reflect genuine uniformity of performance between units, it may also reflect lack of sufficient observations or other factors limiting discrimination on performance between units. In this paper, we present an overview of the main approaches that can be used to improve the discrimination of DEA. This includes simple methods such as the aggregation of inputs or outputs, the use of longitudinal data, more advanced methods such as the use of weight restrictions, production trade-offs and unobserved units, and a relatively new method based on the use of selective proportionality between the inputs and outputs. © 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.

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]

Auditory stream segregation in cochlear implant listeners:measures based on temporal discrimination and interleaved melody recognition

The evidence that cochlear implant listeners routinely experience stream segregation is limited and equivocal. Streaming in these listeners was explored using tone sequences matched to the center frequencies of the implant’s 22 electrodes. Experiment 1 measured temporal discrimination for short (ABA triplet) and longer (12 AB cycles) sequences (tone/silence durations = 60/40 ms). Tone A stimulated electrode 11; tone B stimulated one of 14 electrodes. On each trial, one sequence remained isochronous, and tone B was delayed in the other; listeners had to identify the anisochronous interval. The delay was introduced in the second half of the longer sequences. Prior build-up of streaming should cause thresholds to rise more steeply with increasing electrode separation, but no interaction with sequence length was found. Experiment 2 required listeners to identify which of two target sequences was present when interleaved with distractors (tone/silence durations = 120/80 ms). Accuracy was high for isolated targets, but most listeners performed near chance when loudness-matched distractors were added, even when remote from the target. Only a substantial reduction in distractor level improved performance, and this effect did not interact with target-distractor separation. These results indicate that implantees often do not achieve stream segregation, even in relatively unchallenging tasks.

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.

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.