Visibility tests of 1978 model cars. [Part 2]. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Visibility tests of 1978 model cars. [Part 1]. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Topographic plasticity in primary visual cortex is mediated by local corticocortical connections

The placement of monocular laser lesions in the adult cat retina produces a lesion projection zone (LPZ) in primary visual cortex (V1) in which the majority of neurons have a normally located receptive field (RF) for stimulation of the intact eye and an ectopically located RF ( displaced to intact retina at the edge of the lesion) for stimulation of the lesioned eye. Animals that had such lesions for 14 - 85 d were studied under halothane and nitrous oxide anesthesia with conventional neurophysiological recording techniques and stimulation of moving light bars. Previous work suggested that a candidate source of input, which could account for the development of the ectopic RFs, was long-range horizontal connections within V1. The critical contribution of such input was examined by placing a pipette containing the neurotoxin kainic acid at a site in the normal V1 visual representation that overlapped with the ectopic RF recorded at a site within the LPZ. Continuation of well defined responses to stimulation of the intact eye served as a control against direct effects of the kainic acid at the LPZ recording site. In six of seven cases examined, kainic acid deactivation of neurons at the injection site blocked responsiveness to lesioned-eye stimulation at the ectopic RF for the LPZ recording site. We therefore conclude that long-range horizontal projections contribute to the dominant input underlying the capacity for retinal lesion-induced plasticity in V1.

Binocular contrast vision at and above threshold

A fundamental problem for any visual system with binocular overlap is the combination of information from the two eyes. Electrophysiology shows that binocular integration of luminance contrast occurs early in visual cortex, but a specific systems architecture has not been established for human vision. Here, we address this by performing binocular summation and monocular, binocular, and dichoptic masking experiments for horizontal 1 cycle per degree test and masking gratings. These data reject three previously published proposals, each of which predict too little binocular summation and insufficient dichoptic facilitation. However, a simple development of one of the rejected models (the twin summation model) and a completely new model (the two-stage model) provide very good fits to the data. Two features common to both models are gently accelerating (almost linear) contrast transduction prior to binocular summation and suppressive ocular interactions that contribute to contrast gain control. With all model parameters fixed, both models correctly predict (1) systematic variation in psychometric slopes, (2) dichoptic contrast matching, and (3) high levels of binocular summation for various levels of binocular pedestal contrast. A review of evidence from elsewhere leads us to favor the two-stage model. © 2006 ARVO.

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.

On the relation between dichoptic masking and binocular rivalry

When our two eyes view incompatible images, the brain invokes suppressive processes to inhibit one image, and favor the other. Two phenomena are typically observed: dichoptic masking (reduced sensitivity to one image) for brief presentations, and binocular rivalry (alternation between the two images), over longer exposures. However, it is not clear if these two phenomena arise from a common suppressive process. We investigated this by measuring both threshold elevation in simultaneous dichoptic masking and mean percept durations in rivalry, whilst varying relative stimulus orientation. Masking and rivalry showed significant correlations, such that strong masking was associated with long dominance durations. A second experiment suggested that individual differences across both measures are also correlated. These findings are consistent with varying the magnitude of interocular suppression in computational models of both rivalry and masking, and imply the existence of a common suppressive process. Since dichoptic masking has been localised to the monocular neurons of V1, this is a plausible first stage of binocular rivalry.

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.

Interocular suppression and contrast gain control in human vision

The human visual system combines contrast information from the two eyes to produce a single cyclopean representation of the external world. This task requires both summation of congruent images and inhibition of incongruent images across the eyes. These processes were explored psychophysically using narrowband sinusoidal grating stimuli. Initial experiments focussed on binocular interactions within a single detecting mechanism, using contrast discrimination and contrast matching tasks. Consistent with previous findings, dichoptic presentation produced greater masking than monocular or binocular presentation. Four computational models were compared, two of which performed well on all data sets. Suppression between mechanisms was then investigated, using orthogonal and oblique stimuli. Two distinct suppressive pathways were identified, corresponding to monocular and dichoptic presentation. Both pathways impact prior to binocular summation of signals, and differ in their strengths, tuning, and response to adaptation, consistent with recent single-cell findings in cat. Strikingly, the magnitude of dichoptic masking was found to be spatiotemporally scale invariant, whereas monocular masking was dependent on stimulus speed. Interocular suppression was further explored using a novel manipulation, whereby stimuli were presented in dichoptic antiphase. Consistent with the predictions of a computational model, this produced weaker masking than in-phase presentation. This allowed the bandwidths of suppression to be measured without the complicating factor of additive combination of mask and test. Finally, contrast vision in strabismic amblyopia was investigated. Although amblyopes are generally believed to have impaired binocular vision, binocular summation was shown to be intact when stimuli were normalized for interocular sensitivity differences. An alternative account of amblyopia was developed, in which signals in the affected eye are subject to attenuation and additive noise prior to binocular combination.

Correlation between visual function and visual ability in patients with uveitis

Aim: To investigate the correlation between tests of visual function and perceived visual ability recorded with a quality of life questionnaire for patients with uveitis. Methods: 132 patients with various types of uveitis were studied. High (monocular and binocular) and low (binocular) contrast logMAR letter acuities were recorded using a Bailey-Lovie chart. Contrast sensitivity (binocular) was determined using a Pelli-Robson chart. Vision related quality of life was assessed using the Vision Specific Quality of Life (VQOL) questionnaire. Results: VQOL declined with reduced performance on the following tests: binocular high contrast visual acuity (p = 0.0011), high contrast visual acuity of the better eye (p = 0.0012), contrast sensitivity (p = 0.005), binocular low contrast visual acuity (p = 0.0065), and high contrast visual acuity of the worse eye (p = 0.015). Stepwise multiple regression analysis revealed binocular high contrast visual acuity (p <0.01) to be the only visual function adequate to predict VQOL. The age of the patient was also significantly associated with perceived visual ability (p <0.001). Conclusions: Binocular high contrast visual acuity is a good measure of how uveitis patients perform in real life situations. Vision quality of life is worst in younger patients with poor binocular visual acuity.

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.

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.

Assessing visual fields for driving in patients with paracentral scotomata

Background: The binocular Esterman visual field test (EVFT) is the current visual field test for driving in the UK. Merging of monocular field tests (Integrated Visual Field, IVF) has been proposed as an alternative for glaucoma patients. Aims: To examine the level of agreement between the EVFT and IVF for patients with binocular paracentral scotomata, caused by either ophthalmological or neurological conditions, and to compare outcomes with useful field of view (UFOV) performance, a test of visual attention thought to be important in driving. Methods: 60 patients with binocular paracentral scotomata but normal visual acuity (VA) were recruited prospectively. Subjects completed and were classified as “pass” or “fail” for the EVFT, IVF and UFOV. Results: Good agreement occurred between the EVFT and IVF in classifying subjects as “pass” or “fail” (kappa?=?0.84). Classifications disagreed for four subjects with paracentral scotomata of neurological origin (three “passed” IVF yet “failed” EVFT). Mean UFOV scores did not differ between those who “passed” and those who “failed” both visual field tests (p?=?0.11). Agreement between the visual field tests and UFOV was limited (EVFT kappa?=?0.22, IVF kappa 0.32). Conclusions: Although the IVF and EVFT agree well in classifying visual fields with regard to legal fitness to drive in the UK, the IVF “passes” some individuals currently classed as unfit to drive due to paracentral scotomata of non-glaucomatous origin. The suitability of the UFOV for assessing crash risk in those with visual field loss is questionable.

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.