Contrast discrimination and pattern masking: contrast gain control with fixed additive noise

We studied the visual mechanisms that serve to encode spatial contrast at threshold and supra-threshold levels. In a 2AFC contrast-discrimination task, observers had to detect the presence of a vertical 1 cycle deg-1 test grating (of contrast dc) that was superimposed on a similar vertical 1 cycle deg-1 pedestal grating, whereas in pattern masking the test grating was accompanied by a very different masking grating (horizontal 1 cycle deg-1, or oblique 3 cycles deg-1). When expressed as threshold contrast (dc at 75% correct) versus mask contrast (c) our results confirm previous ones in showing a characteristic 'dipper function' for contrast discrimination but a smoothly increasing threshold for pattern masking. However, fresh insight is gained by analysing and modelling performance (p; percent correct) as a joint function of (c, dc) - the performance surface. In contrast discrimination, psychometric functions (p versus logdc) are markedly less steep when c is above threshold, but in pattern masking this reduction of slope did not occur. We explored a standard gain-control model with six free parameters. Three parameters control the contrast response of the detection mechanism and one parameter weights the mask contrast in the cross-channel suppression effect. We assume that signal-detection performance (d') is limited by additive noise of constant variance. Noise level and lapse rate are also fitted parameters of the model. We show that this model accounts very accurately for the whole performance surface in both types of masking, and thus explains the threshold functions and the pattern of variation in psychometric slopes. The cross-channel weight is about 0.20. The model shows that the mechanism response to contrast increment (dc) is linearised by the presence of pedestal contrasts but remains nonlinear in pattern masking.

Perceiving edge contrast

We have shown previously that a template model for edge perception successfully predicts perceived blur for a variety of edge profiles (Georgeson, 2001 Journal of Vision 1 438a; Barbieri-Hesse and Georgeson, 2002 Perception 31 Supplement, 54). This study concerns the perceived contrast of edges. Our model spatially differentiates the luminance profile, half-wave rectifies this first derivative, and then differentiates again to create the edge's 'signature'. The spatial scale of the signature is evaluated by filtering it with a set of Gaussian derivative operators. This process finds the correlation between the signature and each operator kernel at each position. These kernels therefore act as templates, and the position and scale of the best-fitting template indicate the position and blur of the edge. Our previous finding, that reducing edge contrast reduces perceived blur, can be explained by replacing the half-wave rectifier with a smooth, biased rectifier function (May and Georgeson, 2003 Perception 32 388; May and Georgeson, 2003 Perception 32 Supplement, 46). With the half-wave rectifier, the peak template response R to a Gaussian edge with contrast C and scale s is given by: R=Cp-1/4s-3/2. Hence, edge contrast can be estimated from response magnitude and blur: C=Rp1/4s3/2. Use of this equation with the modified rectifier predicts that perceived contrast will decrease with increasing blur, particularly at low contrasts. Contrast-matching experiments supported this prediction. In addition, the model correctly predicts the perceived contrast of Gaussian edges modified either by spatial truncation or by the addition of a ramp.

Motion sharpening and contrast:Gain control precedes compressive non-linearity?

Blurred edges appear sharper in motion than when they are stationary. We (Vision Research 38 (1998) 2108) have previously shown how such distortions in perceived edge blur may be accounted for by a model which assumes that luminance contrast is encoded by a local contrast transducer whose response becomes progressively more compressive as speed increases. If the form of the transducer is fixed (independent of contrast) for a given speed, then a strong prediction of the model is that motion sharpening should increase with increasing contrast. We measured the sharpening of periodic patterns over a large range of contrasts, blur widths and speeds. The results indicate that whilst sharpening increases with speed it is practically invariant with contrast. The contrast invariance of motion sharpening is not explained by an early, static compressive non-linearity alone. However, several alternative explanations are also inconsistent with these results. We show that if a dynamic contrast gain control precedes the static non-linear transducer then motion sharpening, its speed dependence, and its invariance with contrast, can be predicted with reasonable accuracy. © 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

A model for motion sharpening: contrast gain control precedes compressive nonlinearity

Blurred edges appear sharper in motion than when they are stationary. We have previously shown how such distortions in perceived edge blur may be explained by a model which assumes that luminance contrast is encoded by a local contrast transducer whose response becomes progressively more compressive as speed increases. To test this model further, we measured the sharpening of drifting, periodic patterns over a large range of contrasts, blur widths, and speeds Human Vision. The results indicate that, while sharpening increased with speed, it was practically invariant with contrast. This contrast invariance cannot be explained by a fixed compressive nonlinearity since that predicts almost no sharpening at low contrasts.We show by computational modelling of spatiotemporal responses that, if a dynamic contrast gain control precedes the static nonlinear transducer, then motion sharpening, its speed dependence, and its invariance with contrast can be predicted with reasonable accuracy.

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.

Binocular contrast interactions:Dichoptic masking is not a single process

To decouple interocular suppression and binocular summation we varied the relative phase of mask and target in a 2IFC contrast-masking paradigm. In Experiment I, dichoptic mask gratings had the same orientation and spatial frequency as the target. For in-phase masking, suppression was strong (a log-log slope of ∼1) and there was weak facilitation at low mask contrasts. Anti-phase masking was weaker (a log-log slope of ∼0.7) and there was no facilitation. A two-stage model of contrast gain control [Meese, T.S., Georgeson, M.A. and Baker, D.H. (2006). Binocular contrast vision at and above threshold. Journal of Vision, 6: 1224-1243] provided a good fit to the in-phase results and fixed its free parameters. It made successful predictions (with no free parameters) for the anti-phase results when (A) interocular suppression was phase-indifferent but (B) binocular summation was phase sensitive. Experiments II and III showed that interocular suppression comprised two components: (i) a tuned effect with an orientation bandwidth of ∼±33° and a spatial frequency bandwidth of >3 octaves, and (ii) an untuned effect that elevated threshold by a factor of between 2 and 4. Operationally, binocular summation was more tightly tuned, having an orientation bandwidth of ∼±8°, and a spatial frequency bandwidth of ∼0.5 octaves. Our results replicate the unusual shapes of the in-phase dichoptic tuning functions reported by Legge [Legge, G.E. (1979). Spatial frequency masking in human vision: Binocular interactions. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 69: 838-847]. These can now be seen as the envelope of the direct effects from interocular suppression and the indirect effect from binocular summation, which contaminates the signal channel with a mask that has been suppressed by the target. © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Suppression pathways saturate with contrast for parallel surrounds but not for superimposed cross-oriented masks

Contrast masking from parallel grating surrounds (doughnuts) and superimposed orthogonal masks have different characteristics. However, it is not known whether the saturation of the underlying suppression that has been found for parallel doughnut masks depends on (i) relative mask and target orientation, (ii) stimulus eccentricity or (iii) surround suppression. We measured contrast-masking functions for target patches of grating in the fovea and in the periphery for cross-oriented superimposed and doughnut masks and parallel doughnut masks. When suppression was evident, the factor that determined whether it accelerated or saturated was whether the mask stimulus was crossed or parallel. There are at least two interpretations of the asymptotic behaviour of the parallel surround mask. (1) Suppression arises from pathways that saturate with (mask) contrast. (2) The target is processed by a mechanism that is subject to surround suppression at low target contrasts, but a less sensitive mechanism that is immune from surround suppression ‘breaks through’ at higher target contrasts. If the mask can be made less potent, then masking functions should shift downwards, and sideways for the two accounts, respectively. We manipulated the potency of the mask by varying the size of the hole in a parallel doughnut mask. The results provided strong evidence for the first account but not the second. On the view that response compression becomes more severe progressing up the visual pathway, our results suggest that superimposed cross-orientation suppression precedes orientation tuned surround suppression. These results also reveal a previously unrecognized similarity between surround suppression and crowding (Pelli, Palomares, & Majaj, 2004).

Induced gamma activity in primary visual cortex is related to luminance and not color contrast: an MEG study

Gamma activity in the visual cortex has been reported in numerous EEG studies of coherent and illusory figures. A dominant theme of many such findings has been that temporal synchronization in the gamma band in response to these identifiable percepts is related to perceptual binding of the common features of the stimulus. In two recent studies using magnetoencephalography (MEG) and the beamformer analysis technique, we have shown that the magnitude of induced gamma activity in visual cortex is dependent upon independent stimulus features such as spatial frequency and contrast. In particular, we showed that induced gamma activity is maximal in response to gratings of 3 cycles per degree (3 cpd) of high luminance contrast. In this work, we set out to examine stimulus contrast further by using isoluminant red/green gratings that possess color but not luminance contrast using the same cohort of subjects. We found no induced gamma activity in V1 or visual cortex in response to the isoluminant gratings in these subjects who had previously shown strong induced gamma activity in V1 for luminance contrast gratings.

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.

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.

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.

Spatial and temporal dependencies of cross-orientation suppression in human vision.

A well-known property of orientation-tuned neurons in the visual cortex is that they are suppressed by the superposition of an orthogonal mask. This phenomenon has been explained in terms of physiological constraints (synaptic depression), engineering solutions for components with poor dynamic range (contrast normalization) and fundamental coding strategies for natural images (redundancy reduction). A common but often tacit assumption is that the suppressive process is equally potent at different spatial and temporal scales of analysis. To determine whether it is so, we measured psychophysical cross-orientation masking (XOM) functions for flickering horizontal Gabor stimuli over wide ranges of spatio-temporal frequency and contrast. We found that orthogonal masks raised contrast detection thresholds substantially at low spatial frequencies and high temporal frequencies (high speeds), and that small and unexpected levels of facilitation were evident elsewhere. The data were well fit by a functional model of contrast gain control, where (i) the weight of suppression increased with the ratio of temporal to spatial frequency and (ii) the weight of facilitatory modulation was the same for all conditions, but outcompeted by suppression at higher contrasts. These results (i) provide new constraints for models of primary visual cortex, (ii) associate XOM and facilitation with the transient magno- and sustained parvostreams, respectively, and (iii) reconcile earlier conflicting psychophysical reports on XOM.

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.