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.

Suppression and summation in contrast gain control for human vision

Over the last ten years our understanding of early spatial vision has improved enormously. The long-standing model of probability summation amongst multiple independent mechanisms with static output nonlinearities responsible for masking is obsolete. It has been replaced by a much more complex network of additive, suppressive, and facilitatory interactions and nonlinearities across eyes, area, spatial frequency, and orientation that extend well beyond the classical recep-tive field (CRF). A review of a substantial body of psychophysical work performed by ourselves (20 papers), and others, leads us to the following tentative account of the processing path for signal contrast. The first suppression stage is monocular, isotropic, non-adaptable, accelerates with RMS contrast, most potent for low spatial and high temporal frequencies, and extends slightly beyond the CRF. Second and third stages of suppression are difficult to disentangle but are possibly pre- and post-binocular summation, and involve components that are scale invariant, isotropic, anisotropic, chromatic, achromatic, adaptable, interocular, substantially larger than the CRF, and saturated by contrast. The monocular excitatory pathways begin with half-wave rectification, followed by a preliminary stage of half-binocular summation, a square-law transducer, full binocular summation, pooling over phase, cross-mechanism facilitatory interactions, additive noise, linear summation over area, and a slightly uncertain decision-maker. The purpose of each of these interactions is far from clear, but the system benefits from area and binocular summation of weak contrast signals as well as area and ocularity invariances above threshold (a herd of zebras doesn't change its contrast when it increases in number or when you close one eye). One of many remaining challenges is to determine the stage or stages of spatial tuning in the excitatory pathway.

Binocular combination at threshold: temporal filtering and summation of signals in separate ON and OFF channels

How does the brain combine spatio-temporal signals from the two eyes? We quantified binocular summation as the improvement in 2AFC contrast sensitivity for flickering gratings seen by two eyes compared with one. Binocular gratings in-phase showed sensitivity up to 1.8 times higher, suggesting nearly linear summation of contrasts. The binocular advantage decreased to 1.4 at lower spatial and higher temporal frequencies (0.25 cycle deg-1, 30 Hz). Dichoptic, antiphase gratings showed only a small binocular advantage, by a factor of 1.1 to 1.2, but no evidence of cancellation. We present a signal-processing model to account for the contrast-sensitivity functions and the pattern of binocular summation. It has linear sustained and transient temporal filters, nonlinear transduction, and half-wave rectification that creates ON and OFF channels. Binocular summation occurs separately within ON and OFF channels, thus explaining the phase-specific binocular advantage. The model also accounts for earlier findings on detection of brief antiphase flashes and the surprising finding that dichoptic antiphase flicker is seen as frequency-doubled (Cavonius et al, 1992 Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 12 153 - 156). [Supported by EPSRC project GR/S74515/01].

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]

Binocular summation at contrast threshold:a new look

Contrast sensitivity is better with two eyes than one. The standard view is that thresholds are about 1.4 (v2) times better with two eyes, and that this arises from monocular responses that, near threshold, are proportional to the square of contrast, followed by binocular summation of the two monocular signals. However, estimates of the threshold ratio in the literature vary from about 1.2 to 1.9, and many early studies had methodological weaknesses. We collected extensive new data, and applied a general model of binocular summation to interpret the threshold ratio. We used horizontal gratings (0.25 - 4 cycles deg-1) flickering sinusoidally (1 - 16 Hz), presented to one or both eyes through frame-alternating ferroelectric goggles with negligible cross-talk, and used a 2AFC staircase method to estimate contrast thresholds and psychometric slopes. Four naive observers completed 20 000 trials each, and their mean threshold ratios were 1.63, 1.69, 1.71, 1.81 - grand mean 1.71 - well above the classical v2. Mean ratios tended to be slightly lower (~1.60) at low spatial or high temporal frequencies. We modelled contrast detection very simply by assuming a single binocular mechanism whose response is proportional to (Lm + Rm) p, followed by fixed additive noise, where L,R are contrasts in the left and right eyes, and m, p are constants. Contrast-gain-control effects were assumed to be negligible near threshold. On this model the threshold ratio is 2(?1/m), implying that m=1.3 on average, while the Weibull psychometric slope (median 3.28) equals 1.247mp, yielding p=2.0. Together, the model and data suggest that, at low contrasts across a wide spatiotemporal frequency range, monocular pathways are nearly linear in their contrast response (m close to 1), while a strongly accelerating nonlinearity (p=2, a 'soft threshold') occurs after binocular summation. [Supported by EPSRC project grant GR/S74515/01]

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.

Area summation in human vision at and above detection threshold

The initial image-processing stages of visual cortex are well suited to a local (patchwise) analysis of the viewed scene. But the world's structures extend over space as textures and surfaces, suggesting the need for spatial integration. Most models of contrast vision fall shy of this process because (i) the weak area summation at detection threshold is attributed to probability summation (PS) and (ii) there is little or no advantage of area well above threshold. Both of these views are challenged here. First, it is shown that results at threshold are consistent with linear summation of contrast following retinal inhomogeneity, spatial filtering, nonlinear contrast transduction and multiple sources of additive Gaussian noise. We suggest that the suprathreshold loss of the area advantage in previous studies is due to a concomitant increase in suppression from the pedestal. To overcome this confound, a novel stimulus class is designed where: (i) the observer operates on a constant retinal area, (ii) the target area is controlled within this summation field, and (iii) the pedestal is fixed in size. Using this arrangement, substantial summation is found along the entire masking function, including the region of facilitation. Our analysis shows that PS and uncertainty cannot account for the results, and that suprathreshold summation of contrast extends over at least seven target cycles of grating. © 2007 The Royal Society.

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.

Anisotropy for spatial summation of elongated patches of grating:A tale of two tails

Studies of spatial summation often use sinusoidal gratings with blurred edges. When the envelope is elongated (i) along the grating stripes and (ii) at right angles to the grating stripes, we refer to the stimuli as skunk-tails and tiger-tails respectively. Previous work [Polat & Tyler, 1999; Vision Research, 39, 887-895.] has found that sensitivity to skunk-tails is greater than for tiger-tails, but there have been several failures to replicate this result within a subset of the conditions. To address this we measured detection thresholds for skunk-tails, tiger-tails and squares of grating with sides matched to the lengths of the tails. For foveal viewing, we found a contrast sensitivity advantage in the order of 2 dB for skunk-tails over tiger-tails, but only for horizontal gratings. For vertical gratings, sensitivity was very similar for both tail-types. When the stimuli were presented parafoveally (upper right visual field), a small advantage was found for skunk-tails over tiger-tails at both orientations, and spatial summation slopes were close to that of the ideal observer. We did not replicate the findings of Polat & Tyler, but our results are consistent with (i) those of Foley et al. [Foley, J. M., Varadharajan, S., Koh, C. C., & Farias, C. Q. (2007) Vision Research, 47, 85-107.] who used only vertical gratings and (ii) those from modelfest, where only horizontal gratings were used. The small effect of tail-type here suggests an anisotropy in the underlying physiology. © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Grating and plaid masks indicate linear summation in a contrast gain pool

In human vision, the response to luminance contrast at each small region in the image is controlled by a more global process where suppressive signals are pooled over spatial frequency and orientation bands. But what rules govern summation among stimulus components within the suppressive pool? We addressed this question by extending a pedestal plus pattern mask paradigm to use a stimulus with up to three mask components: a vertical 1 c/deg pedestal, plus pattern masks made from either a grating (orientation = -45°) or a plaid (orientation = ±45°), with component spatial frequency of 3 c/deg. The overall contrast of both types of pattern mask was fixed at 20% (i.e., plaid component contrasts were 10%). We found that both of these masks transformed conventional dipper functions (threshold vs. pedestal contrast with no pattern mask) in exactly the same way: The dipper region was raised and shifted to the right, but the dipper handles superimposed. This equivalence of the two pattern masks indicates that contrast summation between the plaid components was perfectly linear prior to the masking stage. Furthermore, the pattern masks did not drive the detecting mechanism above its detection threshold because they did not abolish facilitation by the pedestal (Foley, 1994). Therefore, the pattern masking could not be attributed to within-channel masking, suggesting that linear summation of contrast signals takes place within a suppressive contrast gain pool. We present a quantitative model of the effects and discuss the implications for neurophysiological models of the process. © 2004 ARVO.

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.

Performance data indicate summation for pictorial depth-cues in slanted surfaces

Over recent years much has been learned about the way in which depth cues are combined (e.g. Landy et al., 1995). The majority of this work has used subjective measures, a rating scale or a point of subjective equality, to deduce the relative contributions of different cues to perception. We have adopted a very different approach by using two interval forced-choice (2IFC) performance measures and a signal processing framework. We performed summation experiments for depth cue increment thresholds between pairs of pictorial depth cues in displays depicting slanted planar surfaces made from arrays of circular 'contrast' elements. Summation was found to be ideal when size-gradient was paired with contrast-gradient for a wide range of depth-gradient magnitudes in the null stimulus. For a pairing of size-gradient and linear perspective, substantial summation (> 1.5 dB) was found only when the null stimulus had intermediate depth gradients; when flat or steeply inclined surfaces were depicted, summation was diminished or abolished. Summation was also abolished when one of the target cues was (i) not a depth cue, or (ii) added in conflict. We conclude that vision has a depth mechanism for the constructive combination of pictorial depth cues and suggest two generic models of summation to describe the results. Using similar psychophysical methods, Bradshaw and Rogers (1996) revealed a mechanism for the depth cues of motion parallax and binocular disparity. Whether this is the same or a different mechanism from the one reported here awaits elaboration.

Spiral mechanisms are required to account for summation of complex motion components

Stimuli from one family of complex motions are defined by their spiral pitch, where cardinal axes represent signed expansion and rotation. Intermediate spirals are represented by intermediate pitches. It is well established that vision contains mechanisms that sum over space and direction to detect these stimuli (Morrone et al., Nature 376 (1995) 507) and one possibility is that four cardinal mechanisms encode the entire family. We extended earlier work (Meese & Harris, Vision Research 41 (2001) 1901) using subthreshold summation of random dot kinematograms and a two-interval forced choice technique to investigate this possibility. In our main experiments, the spiral pitch of one component was fixed and that of another was varied in steps of 15° relative to the first. Regardless of whether the fixed component was aligned with cardinal axes or an intermediate spiral, summation to-coherence-threshold between the two components declined as a function of their difference in spiral pitch. Similar experiments showed that none of the following were critical design features or stimulus parameters for our results: superposition of signal dots, limited life-time dots, the presence of speed gradients, stimulus size or the number of dots. A simplex algorithm was used to fit models containing mechanisms spaced at a pitch of either 90° (cardinal model) or 45° (cardinal+model) and combined using a fourth-root summation rule. For both models, direction half-bandwidth was equated for all mechanisms and was the only free parameter. Only the cardinal+model could account for the full set of results. We conclude that the detection of complex motion in human vision requires both cardinal and spiral mechanisms with a half-bandwidth of approximately 46°. © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

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.