The perceptual organization of sine-wave speech under competitive conditions

Speech comprises dynamic and heterogeneous acoustic elements, yet it is heard as a single perceptual stream even when accompanied by other sounds. The relative contributions of grouping “primitives” and of speech-specific grouping factors to the perceptual coherence of speech are unclear, and the acoustical correlates of the latter remain unspecified. The parametric manipulations possible with simplified speech signals, such as sine-wave analogues, make them attractive stimuli to explore these issues. Given that the factors governing perceptual organization are generally revealed only where competition operates, the second-formant competitor (F2C) paradigm was used, in which the listener must resist competition to optimize recognition [Remez et al., Psychol. Rev. 101, 129-156 (1994)]. Three-formant (F1+F2+F3) sine-wave analogues were derived from natural sentences and presented dichotically (one ear = F1+F2C+F3; opposite ear = F2). Different versions of F2C were derived from F2 using separate manipulations of its amplitude and frequency contours. F2Cs with time-varying frequency contours were highly effective competitors, regardless of their amplitude characteristics. In contrast, F2Cs with constant frequency contours were completely ineffective. Competitor efficacy was not due to energetic masking of F3 by F2C. These findings indicate that modulation of the frequency, but not the amplitude, contour is critical for across-formant grouping.

Psychophysical evidence for two routes to suppression before binocular summation of signals in human vision

Visual mechanisms in primary visual cortex are suppressed by the superposition of gratings perpendicular to their preferred orientations. A clear picture of this process is needed to (i) inform functional architecture of image-processing models, (ii) identify the pathways available to support binocular rivalry, and (iii) generally advance our understanding of early vision. Here we use monoptic sine-wave gratings and cross-orientation masking (XOM) to reveal two cross-oriented suppressive pathways in humans, both of which occur before full binocular summation of signals. One is a within-eye (ipsiocular) pathway that is spatially broadband, immune to contrast adaptation and has a suppressive weight that tends to decrease with stimulus duration. The other pathway operates between the eyes (interocular), is spatially tuned, desensitizes with contrast adaptation and has a suppressive weight that increases with stimulus duration. When cross-oriented masks are presented to both eyes, masking is enhanced or diminished for conditions in which either ipsiocular or interocular pathways dominate masking, respectively. We propose that ipsiocular suppression precedes the influence of interocular suppression and tentatively associate the two effects with the lateral geniculate nucleus (or retina) and the visual cortex respectively. The interocular route is a good candidate for the initial pathway involved in binocular rivalry and predicts that interocular cross-orientation suppression should be found in cortical cells with predominantly ipsiocular drive. © 2007 IBRO.

Binocular summation of contrast remains intact in strabismic amblyopia

PURPOSE. Strabismic amblyopia is typically associated with several visual deficits, including loss of contrast sensitivity in the amblyopic eye and abnormal binocular vision. Binocular summation ratios (BSRs) are usually assessed by comparing contrast sensitivity for binocular stimuli (sens BIN) with that measured in the good eye alone (sensGOOD), giving BSR = sensBIN/sensGOOD. This calculation provides an operational index of clinical binocular function, but does not assess whether neuronal mechanisms for binocular summation of contrast remain intact. This study was conducted to investigate this question. METHODS. Horizontal sine-wave gratings were used as stimuli (3 or 9 cyc/deg; 200 ms), and the conventional method of assessment (above) was compared with one in which the contrast in the amblyopic eye was adjusted (normalized) to equate monocular sensitivities. RESULTS. In nine strabismic amblyopes (mean age, 32 years), the results confirmed that the BSR was close to unity when the conventional method was used (little or no binocular advantage), but increased to approximately √2 or higher when the normalization method was used. The results were similar to those for normal control subjects (n = 3; mean age, 38 years) and were consistent with the physiological summation of contrast between the eyes. When the normal observers performed the experiments with a neutral-density (ND) filter in front of one eye, their performance was similar to that of the amblyopes in both methods of assessment. CONCLUSIONS. The results indicate that strabismic amblyopes have mechanisms for binocular summation of contrast and that the amblyopic deficits of binocularity can be simulated with an ND filter. The implications of these results for best clinical practice are discussed. Copyright © Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology.

Depth propagation and surface construction in 3-D vision

In stereo vision, regions with ambiguous or unspecified disparity can acquire perceived depth from unambiguous regions. This has been called stereo capture, depth interpolation or surface completion. We studied some striking induced depth effects suggesting that depth interpolation and surface completion are distinct stages of visual processing. An inducing texture (2-D Gaussian noise) had sinusoidal modulation of disparity, creating a smooth horizontal corrugation. The central region of this surface was replaced by various test patterns whose perceived corrugation was measured. When the test image was horizontal 1-D noise, shown to one eye or to both eyes without disparity, it appeared corrugated in much the same way as the disparity-modulated (DM) flanking regions. But when the test image was 2-D noise, or vertical 1-D noise, little or no depth was induced. This suggests that horizontal orientation was a key factor. For a horizontal sine-wave luminance grating, strong depth was induced, but for a square-wave grating, depth was induced only when its edges were aligned with the peaks and troughs of the DM flanking surface. These and related results suggest that disparity (or local depth) propagates along horizontal 1-D features, and then a 3-D surface is constructed from the depth samples acquired. The shape of the constructed surface can be different from the inducer, and so surface construction appears to operate on the results of a more local depth propagation process.

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]

Template model for blur coding: the role of early nonlinearity in edge segmentation

We describe a template model for perception of edge blur and identify a crucial early nonlinearity in this process. The main principle is to spatially filter the edge image to produce a 'signature', and then find which of a set of templates best fits that signature. Psychophysical blur-matching data strongly support the use of a second-derivative signature, coupled to Gaussian first-derivative templates. The spatial scale of the best-fitting template signals the edge blur. This model predicts blur-matching data accurately for a wide variety of Gaussian and non-Gaussian edges, but it suffers a bias when edges of opposite sign come close together in sine-wave gratings and other periodic images. This anomaly suggests a second general principle: the region of an image that 'belongs' to a given edge should have a consistent sign or direction of luminance gradient. Segmentation of the gradient profile into regions of common sign is achieved by implementing the second-derivative 'signature' operator as two first-derivative operators separated by a half-wave rectifier. This multiscale system of nonlinear filters predicts perceived blur accurately for periodic and aperiodic waveforms. We also outline its extension to 2-D images and infer the 2-D shape of the receptive fields.

Mach Bands: multi-scale spatial filtering and co-operative coding of edges and bars

Perception of Mach bands may be explained by spatial filtering ('lateral inhibition') that can be approximated by 2nd derivative computation, and several alternative models have been proposed. To distinguish between them, we used a novel set of ‘generalised Gaussian’ images, in which the sharp ramp-plateau junction of the Mach ramp was replaced by smoother transitions. The images ranged from a slightly blurred Mach ramp to a Gaussian edge and beyond, and also included a sine-wave edge. The probability of seeing Mach Bands increased with the (relative) sharpness of the junction, but was largely independent of absolute spatial scale. These data did not fit the predictions of MIRAGE, nor 2nd derivative computation at a single fine scale. In experiment 2, observers used a cursor to mark features on the same set of images. Data on perceived position of Mach bands did not support the local energy model. Perceived width of Mach bands was poorly explained by a single-scale edge detection model, despite its previous success with Mach edges (Wallis & Georgeson, 2009, Vision Research, 49, 1886-1893). A more successful model used separate (odd and even) scale-space filtering for edges and bars, local peak detection to find candidate features, and the MAX operator to compare odd- and even-filter response maps (Georgeson, VSS 2006, Journal of Vision 6(6), 191a). Mach bands are seen when there is a local peak in the even-filter (bar) response map, AND that peak value exceeds corresponding responses in the odd-filter (edge) maps.

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.

Neuronal convergence in early contrast vision: binocular summation is followed by response nonlinearity and area summation

We assessed summation of contrast across eyes and area at detection threshold ( C t). Stimuli were sine-wave gratings (2.5 c/deg) spatially modulated by cosine- and anticosine-phase raised plaids (0.5 c/deg components oriented at ±45°). When presented dichoptically the signal regions were interdigitated across eyes but produced a smooth continuous grating following their linear binocular sum. The average summation ratio ( C t1/([ C t1+2]) for this stimulus pair was 1.64 (4.3 dB). This was only slightly less than the binocular summation found for the same patch type presented to both eyes, and the area summation found for the two different patch types presented to the same eye. We considered 192 model architectures containing each of the following four elements in all possible orders: (i) linear summation or a MAX operator across eyes, (ii) linear summation or a MAX operator across area, (iii) linear or accelerating contrast transduction, and (iv) additive Gaussian, stochastic noise. Formal equivalences reduced this to 62 different models. The most successful four-element model was: linear summation across eyes followed by nonlinear contrast transduction, linear summation across area, and late noise. Model performance was enhanced when additional nonlinearities were placed before binocular summation and after area summation. The implications for models of probability summation and uncertainty are discussed.

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.

Contextual modulation involves suppression and facilitation from the center and the surround

In psychophysics, cross-orientation suppression (XOS) and cross-orientation facilitation (XOF) have been measured by investigating mask configuration on the detection threshold of a centrally placed patch of sine-wave grating. Much of the evidence for XOS and XOF comes from studies using low and high spatial frequencies, respectively, where the interactions are thought to arise from within (XOS) and outside (XOF) the footprint of the classical receptive field. We address the relation between these processes here by measuring the effects of various sizes of superimposed and annular cross-oriented masks on detection thresholds at two spatial scales (1 and 7 c/deg) and on contrast increment thresholds at 7 c/deg. A functional model of our results indicates the following (1) XOS and XOF both occur for superimposed and annular masks. (2) XOS declines with spatial frequency but XOF does not. (3) The spatial extent of the interactions does not scale with spatial frequency, meaning that surround-effects are seen primarily at high spatial frequencies. (4) There are two distinct processes involved in XOS: direct divisive suppression and modulation of self-suppression. (5) Whether XOS or XOF wins out depends upon their relative weights and mask contrast. These results prompt enquiry into the effect of spatial frequency at the single-cell level and place new constraints on image-processing models of early visual processing. © ARVO.

Remote facilitation in the Fourier domain

To explore spatial interactions between visual mechanisms in the Fourier domain we measured detection thresholds for vertical and horizontal sine-wave gratings (4.4 deg diameter) over a range of spatial frequencies (0.5-23 c/deg) in the presence of grating and plaid masks with component contrasts of 8%, orientations of ±45° and a spatial frequency of 1 c/deg. The mask suppressed the target grating over a range of ±1 octave, and the plaid produced more suppression than the grating, consistent with summation of mask components in a broadly tuned contrast gain pool. At greater differences in spatial frequency (∼3 octaves), the plaid and grating masks both produced about 3 dB of facilitation (they reduced detection thresholds by a factor of about √2). At yet further distances (∼4 octaves) the masks had no effect. The facilitation cannot be attributed to a reduction of uncertainty by the mask because (a) it occurs for mask components that have very different spatial frequencies and orientations from the test and (b) the large stimulus size and central fixation point mean there was no spatial uncertainty that could be reduced. We suggest the results are due to long-range sensory interactions (in the Fourier domain) between mask and test-channels. The effects could be due to either direct facilitation or disinhibition. © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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.

Low spatial frequencies are suppressively masked across spatial scale, orientation, field position, and eye of origin

Masking is said to occur when a mask stimulus interferes with the visibility of a target (test) stimulus. One widely held view of this process supposes interactions between mask and test mechanisms (cross-channel masking), and explicit models (e.g., J. M. Foley, 1994) have proposed that the interactions are inhibitory. Unlike a within-channel model, where masking involves the combination of mask and test stimulus within a single mechanism, this cross-channel inhibitory model predicts that the mask should attenuate the perceived contrast of a test stimulus. Another possibility is that masking is due to an increase in noise, in which case, perception of contrast should be unaffected once the signal exceeds detection threshold. We use circular patches and annuli of sine-wave grating in contrast detection and contrast matching experiments to test these hypotheses and investigate interactions across spatial frequency, orientation, field position, and eye of origin. In both types of experiments we found substantial effects of masking that can occur over a factor of 3 in spatial frequency, 45° in orientation, across different field positions and between different eyes. We found the effects to be greatest at the lowest test spatial frequency we used (0.46 c/deg), and when the mask and test differed in all four dimensions simultaneously. This is surprising in light of previous work where it was concluded that suppression from the surround was strictly monocular (C. Chubb, G. Sperling, & J. A. Solomon, 1989). The results confirm that above detection threshold, cross-channel masking involves contrast suppression and not (purely) mask-induced noise. We conclude that cross-channel masking can be a powerful phenomenon, particularly at low test spatial frequencies and when mask and test are presented to different eyes. © 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.