High level data fusion

We address the question of how to obtain effective fusion of identification information such that it is robust to the quality of this information. As well as technical issues data fusion is encumbered with a collection of (potentially confusing) practical considerations. These considerations are described during the early chapters in which a framework for data fusion is developed. Following this process of diversification it becomes clear that the original question is not well posed and requires more precise specification. We use the framework to focus on some of the technical issues relevant to the question being addressed. We show that fusion of hard decisions through use of an adaptive version of the maximum a posteriori decision rule yields acceptable performance. Better performance is possible using probability level fusion as long as the probabilities are accurate. Of particular interest is the prevalence of overconfidence and the effect it has on fused performance. The production of accurate probabilities from poor quality data forms the latter part of the thesis. Two approaches are taken. Firstly the probabilities may be moderated at source (either analytically or numerically). Secondly, the probabilities may be transformed at the fusion centre. In each case an improvement in fused performance is demonstrated. We therefore conclude that in order to obtain robust fusion care should be taken to model the probabilities accurately; either at the source or centrally.

Binocular fusion, suppression and diplopia for blurred edges

Purpose: (1) To devise a model-based method for estimating the probabilities of binocular fusion, interocular suppression and diplopia from psychophysical judgements, (2) To map out the way fusion, suppression and diplopia vary with binocular disparity and blur of single edges shown to each eye, (3) To compare the binocular interactions found for edges of the same vs opposite contrast polarity. Methods: Test images were single, horizontal, Gaussian-blurred edges, with blur B = 1-32 min arc, and vertical disparity 0-8.B, shown for 200 ms. In the main experiment, observers reported whether they saw one central edge, one offset edge, or two edges. We argue that the relation between these three response categories and the three perceptual states (fusion, suppression, diplopia) is indirect and likely to be distorted by positional noise and criterion effects, and so we developed a descriptive, probabilistic model to estimate both the perceptual states and the noise/criterion parameters from the data. Results: (1) Using simulated data, we validated the model-based method by showing that it recovered fairly accurately the disparity ranges for fusion and suppression, (2) The disparity range for fusion (Panum's limit) increased greatly with blur, in line with previous studies. The disparity range for suppression was similar to the fusion limit at large blurs, but two or three times the fusion limit at small blurs. This meant that diplopia was much more prevalent at larger blurs, (3) Diplopia was much more frequent when the two edges had opposite contrast polarity. A formal comparison of models indicated that fusion occurs for same, but not opposite, polarities. Probability of suppression was greater for unequal contrasts, and it was always the lower-contrast edge that was suppressed. Conclusions: Our model-based data analysis offers a useful tool for probing binocular fusion and suppression psychophysically. The disparity range for fusion increased with edge blur but fell short of complete scale-invariance. The disparity range for suppression also increased with blur but was not close to scale-invariance. Single vision occurs through fusion, but also beyond the fusion range, through suppression. Thus suppression can serve as a mechanism for extending single vision to larger disparities, but mainly for sharper edges where the fusion range is small (5-10 min arc). For large blurs the fusion range is so much larger that no such extension may be needed. © 2014 The College of Optometrists.

The relationship between fusion, suppression, and diplopia in amblyopia

Purpose: Traditionally, it has been thought that no binocular combination occurs in amblyopia. However, there is a growing body of evidence that there are intact binocular mechanisms in amblyopia rendered inactive under normal viewing conditions due to imbalanced monocular inputs. Georgeson and Wallis (2014) recently introduced a novel method to investigate fusion, suppression and diplopia in normal population. We have modified this method to assess binocular interactions in amblyopia. Methods: Ten amblyopic and ten control subjects viewed briefly-presented (200 ms) pairs of dichoptically separated horizontal Gaussian blurred edges. Subjects reported one central edge, one offset edge, or a double edge as the vertical disparity was manipulated. The experiment was conducted at a range of spatial scales (blur widths of 4, 8, 16, and 32 arc min) and contrasts. Our model, based Georgeson and Wallis (2014), converted subjects’ responses into probabilities of fusion, suppression, and diplopia. Results: When the normal participants were presented equal contrast to each eye the probability of fusion gradually decreased with increasing disparity, as the probability of diplopia gradually increased. In only a small proportion of the trials, normal participants experienced suppression. The pattern was consistent across all edge blurs. Interestingly, the majority of amblyopes had a comparable pattern of fusion, i.e. decreasing probability with increasing disparity. However, with increasing disparity the amblyopes tended to suppress the amblyopic eye, experiencing diplopia only in a small proportion of trials particularly at large blurs. Increasing the interocular contrast offset favouring the amblyopic eye normalized the pattern of data in a way similar to normal participants. There were some interesting exceptions: strong suppressors for which our contrast range was inadequate and one case in which diplopia dominated. Conclusions: This task is suitable for assessing binocular interactions in amblyopic participants and providing a way to quantify the relationship between fusion, suppression and diplopia. In agreement with previous studies, our data indicate the presence of binocular mechanisms in amblyopia. A contrast offset favouring the amblyopic eye normalizes the measured binocular interactions in the amblyopic visual system.