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.

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probability summation amongst multiple independent mechanisms with static output nonlinearities responsible for masking is obsolete. It has been replaced by a much more complex network of additive, suppressive, and facilitatory interactions and nonlinearities across eyes, area, spatial frequency, and orientation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]

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.

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.

Perception of global image contrast is predicted by the same spatial integration model of gain control as detection and discrimination

How are the image statistics of global image contrast computed? We answered this by using a contrast-matching task for checkerboard configurations of ‘battenberg’ micro-patterns where the contrasts and spatial spreads of interdigitated pairs of micro-patterns were adjusted independently. Test stimuli were 20 × 20 arrays with various sized cluster widths, matched to standard patterns of uniform contrast. When one of the test patterns contained a pattern with much higher contrast than the other, that determined global pattern contrast, as in a max() operation. Crucially, however, the full matching functions had a curious intermediate region where low contrast additions for one pattern to intermediate contrasts of the other caused a paradoxical reduction in perceived global contrast. None of the following models predicted this: RMS, energy, linear sum, max, Legge and Foley. However, a gain control model incorporating wide-field integration and suppression of nonlinear contrast responses predicted the results with no free parameters. This model was derived from experiments on summation of contrast at threshold, and masking and summation effects in dipper functions. Those experiments were also inconsistent with the failed models above. Thus, we conclude that our contrast gain control model (Meese & Summers, 2007) describes a fundamental operation in human contrast vision.

Src, a molecular switch governing gain control of synaptic transmission mediated by N-methyl-d-aspartate receptors

The N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor is a principal subtype of glutamate receptor mediating fast excitatory transmission at synapses in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord and other regions of the central nervous system. NMDA receptors are crucial for the lasting enhancement of synaptic transmission that occurs both physiologically and in pathological conditions such as chronic pain. Over the past several years, evidence has accumulated indicating that the activity of NMDA receptors is regulated by the protein tyrosine kinase, Src. Recently it has been discovered that, by means of up-regulating NMDA receptor function, activation of Src mediates the induction of the lasting enhancement of excitatory transmission known as long-term potentiation in the CA1 region of the hippocampus. Also, Src has been found to amplify the up-regulation of NMDA receptor function that is produced by raising the intracellular concentration of sodium. Sodium concentration increases in neuronal dendrites during high levels of firing activity, which is precisely when Src becomes activated. Therefore, we propose that the boost in NMDA receptor function produced by the coincidence of activating Src and raising intracellular sodium may be important in physiological and pathophysiological enhancement of excitatory transmission in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord and elsewhere in the central nervous system.

A bang-bang PLL employing dynamic gain control for low jitter and fast lock times

Bang-bang phase detector based PLLs are simple to design, suffer no systematic phase error, and can run at the highest speed a process can make a working flip-flop. For these reasons designers are employing them in the design of very high speed Clock Data Recovery (CDR) architectures. The major drawback of this class of PLL is the inherent jitter due to quantized phase and frequency corrections. Reducing loop gain can proportionally improve jitter performance, but also reduces locking time and pull-in range. This paper presents a novel PLL design that dynamically scales its gain in order to achieve fast lock times while improving fitter performance in lock. Under certain circumstances the design also demonstrates improved capture range. This paper also analyses the behaviour of a bang-bang type PLL when far from lock, and demonstrates that the pull-in range is proportional to the square root of the PLL loop gain.

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.

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.