After-effects and the integration of patterns of neural activity within a channel

On the contribution of a binocular 'AND' channel at contrast threshold

Three experiments are reported in which an attempt was made to isolate the contribution of an AND channel by measuring aftereffects following alternating monocular adaptation. The first two were designed to test Wolf and Held's proposal that the binocular AND channel does not respond at contrast threshold. In the first experiment the relative sizes of monocular and binocular contrast threshold elevation were compared with the pattern of aftereffects obtained in a study of the suprathreshold tilt aftereffect. Identical patterns of results were obtained under the two adaptation conditions. In the second experiment, the monocular and binocular contrast-reduction aftereffect reported by Blakemore et al was measured over a wide range of reference contrasts. As in the previous experiment, the monocular effect was greater than the binocular effect. This occurred at all reference contrasts. These data support the conclusion that the AND channel contributes to visual performance in the same manner, irrespective of stimulus contrast. In the final experiment an alternative explanation for existing evidence against the existence of an AND channel was assessed.

Properties of the stereoscopic (cyclopean) motion aftereffect

Across four experiments, this study investigated properties of the stereoscopic motion aftereffect (adaptation from moving retinal disparity information). The results showed that stereoscopic motion can induce an adaptation aftereffect across a wide range of conditions and observers, provided that the duration of adaptation is sufficiently long and a perceptually salient test pattern is viewed. Motion adaptation was found to transfer between the stereoscopic and luminance domains [replicating a previous report by Fox, Patterson and Lehmkuhle (1982) Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science (Suppl.), 22, 144], suggesting that motion perception from stereoscopic (second-order) and luminance (first-order) attributes is mediated by a common neural substrate.

On interocular transfer of motion aftereffects

A brief history of quantitative assessments of interocular transfer (IOT) of the motion aftereffect (MAE) is presented. Recent research indicates that the MAE occurs as a consequence of adapting detectors for relative rather than retinal motion. When gratings above and below a stationary, fixated grating are moved in an otherwise dark field the central, retinally stationary grafting appears to move in the opposite direction; when tested with stationary gratings an MAE is almost entirely confined to the central grating. The IOT of such an MAE was measured in experiment 1: the display was presented to one eye with a black field in the other. The IOT was about 30% of the monocular MAE. Similar values were found in experiment 2, in which the contralateral eye received an equivalent central stationary grating during adaptation and test. The dichoptic interaction of the processes involved in the MAE was examined by presenting the central gratings to both eyes and a single flanking grating above in one eye and below in the other (experiment 3). The MAE was tested with either the same or the contralateral pairing. Oppositely directed MAEs were found for the central and flanking gratings, but they were confined mainly to the conditions in which the configurations presented during adaptation were present in the same eyes during test. In experiment 4, the surround MAEs were compared after adaptation with two moving gratings in one eye or with a similar dichoptic configuration, and they were of similar duration. In a final experiment the MAE was tested either monocularly or binocularly after alternating adaptation of the left and right eyes and was found to be of the same duration. It is concluded that the MAE is a consequence of adapting relational-motion detectors, which are either monocular or of the binocular OR class.

Determinants of two-dimensional motion aftereffects induced by simultaneously- and alternately-presented plaid components

Wenderoth, Bray and Johnstone [(1988) Perception, 17, 81-91] measured motion aftereffects induced on stationary vertical sine-wave gratings by horizontally drifting two-dimensional patterns (plaids). The adapting plaid component gratings were simultaneously or alternately presented and were oriented left and right of vertical by 15, 45 or 75 degrees. It was found that aftereffects decreased linearly in the alternating conditions as the plaid component orientations changed but this was not the case in the simultaneous adaptation conditions, a finding taken to be consistent with the hypothesis that one-dimensional aftereffects have a low level site (possibly V1) whereas two-dimensional effects have a higher level site (possibly MT). In three experiments, we have examined in more detail the determinants of aftereffects induced by simultaneous and alternating plaid components. The data suggest that the mechanisms involved are more complex than those put forward by Wenderoth et al. and that plaid perception utilizes both higher and lower level processes which can be referred to, respectively, as an intersection of constraints algorithm and a moving "blob" detector.

Motion over the retina and the motion aftereffect

The motion aftereffect (MAE) was measured with retinally moving vertical gratings positioned above and below (flanking) a retinally stationary central grating (experiments 1 and 2). Motion over the retina was produced by leftward motion of the flanking gratings relative to the stationary eyes, and by rightward eye or head movements tracking the moving (but retinally stationary) central grating relative to the stationary (but retinally moving) surround gratings. In experiment 1 the motion occurred within a fixed boundary on the screen, and oppositely directed MAEs were produced in the central and flanking gratings with static fixation; but with eye or head tracking MAEs were reported only in the central grating. In experiment 2 motion over the retina was equated for the static and tracking conditions by moving blocks of grating without any dynamic occlusion and disclosure at the boundaries. Both conditions yielded equivalent leftward MAEs of the central grating in the same direction as the prior flanking motion, ie an MAE was consistently produced in the region that had remained retinally stationary. No MAE was recorded in the flanking gratings, even though they moved over the retina during adaptation. When just two gratings were presented, MAEs were produced in both, but in opposite directions (experiments 3 and 4). It is concluded that the MAE is a consequence of adapting signals for the relative motion between elements of a display.

Motion aftereffects from a motionless stimulus

Dimming or brightening regions superimposed, slightly out of register, on static light or dark blobs, give rise to apparent motion. When these regions are replaced by apparent brightening or dimming produced by ramp aftereffects, a directional motion aftereffect is perceived. It is concluded that filters sensitive to temporal derivative signals of net brightening or dimming provide an input into the motion pathways.

Measurement of visual aftereffects and inferences about binocular mechanisms in human vision

There is conflicting evidence concerning the characteristics of binocular channels in the human visual system with respect to the existence of a 'pure' binocular channel that responds only to simultaneous stimulation of both eyes. Four experiments were conducted to resolve these discrepancies and to evaluate the evidence for the existence of such an exclusive binocular channel. In the first three studies, tilt aftereffects were measured after monocular adaptation. The relative sizes of the direct, interocularly transferred, and binocular aftereffects were not influenced by the configuration of the adapting pattern (experiment 1), or by the eye used for adaptation (experiment 2). There were also consistent interobserver differences in the relative sizes of the aftereffect seen after monocular adaptation (experiment 3). Taken together, these data raise questions about the appropriateness of a monocular adaptation paradigm for evaluating the presence of a pure binocular channel in observers with normal binocular vision. In experiment 4, in which the paradigm of alternating monocular adaptation was used, data were obtained that are consistent with the presence of a pure binocular channel.

Cyclopean tilt aftereffects can be induced monocularly: is there a purely binocular process?

A series of experiments have been reported by Wolfe and Held which they have taken as evidence for the existence of more than one binocular process in human vision, specifically a simple binocular process (OR-gate) and a purely binocular process (AND-gate). In one of their studies, it was shown that tilt aftereffects induced with cyclopean stimuli produced measurable effects only when testing was binocular, which suggested that cyclopean adaptation affects only the AND-gate mechanism. If the two alleged mechanisms (AND or OR) are independent, monocular adaptation with luminance contrast stimuli should produce aftereffects which can only be measured with luminance contrast test stimuli. Cyclopean test displays would probe only the unadapted AND-mechanism. Results to the contrary are reported, casting doubt upon the functional independence, perhaps even the existence, of the so-called purely binocular process.

An astable multivibrator model of binocular rivalry

The behavior of a neural network model for binocular rivalry is explored through the development of an analogy between it and an electronic astable multivibrator circuit. The model incorporates reciprocal feedback inhibition between signals from the left and the right eyes prior to binocular convergence. The strength of inhibitory coupling determines whether the system undergoes rivalrous oscillations or remains in stable fusion: strong coupling leads to oscillations, weak coupling to fusion. This implies that correlation between spatial patterns presented to the two eyes can affect the strength of binocular inhibition. Finally, computer simulations are presented which show that a reciprocal inhibition model can reproduce the stochastic behavior of rivalry. The model described is a counterexample to claims that reciprocal inhibition models as a class cannot exhibit many of the experimentally observed properties of rivalry.

Aftereffects in binocular rivalry

Five experiments are reported in which the aftereffect paradigm was applied to binocular rivalry. In the first three experiments rivalry was between a vertical grating presented to the left eye and a horizontal grating presented to the right eye. In the fourth experiment the rivalry stimuli consisted of a rotating sectored disc presented to the left eye and a static concentric circular pattern presented to the right. In experiment 5 rivalry was between static radiating and circular patterns. The predominance durations were systematically influenced by direct (same eye) and indirect (interocular) adaptation in a manner similar to that seen for spatial aftereffects. Binocular adaptation produced an aftereffect that was significantly smaller than the direct aftereffect, but not significantly different from the indirect one. A model is developed to account for the results; it involves two levels of binocular interaction in addition to monocular channels. It is suggested that the site of spatial aftereffects is the same as that for binocular rivalry, rather than sequentially prior.

Two channels for flicker in the human visual system

The human visual system contains a large number of narrowly-tuned spatial-frequency-specific channels. Does it contain an analogous set of channels tuned to a narrow range of temporal frequency? On the basis of data gathered with the use of a threshold elevation technique it is argued that human sensitivity to flicker can be accounted for by assuming the existence of just two filters, one a low-pass filter peaking gently at around 6 Hz and one a band-pass filter peaking at around 9 Hz. Similar data gathered from studies of interocular transfer suggest that at least some of the mechanisms involved are binocular, rather than being purely monocular as has previously been suggested.

Separate motion aftereffects from each eye and from both eyes

Monocular and binocular motion aftereffects (MAEs) are described, which were contingent upon which eye(s) was (were) exposed to the adapting motion. Subjects viewed clockwise rotation of a patterned disc with their left eye, alternating every 5 sec with anticlockwise rotation seen with their right eye, for a 10-min adapting period.

RESULT

they saw an anticlockwise motion aftereffect with their left eye, and a clockwise MAE with their right eye. These monocular MAEs lasted for only 2-20 sec, but could be elicited repeatedly over a 2-6 min period, and could still be re-elicited two hours later. In a second experiment, subjects adapted for 10 min to the following cycle of 5-sec rotations: left eye, clockwise: right eye, clockwise: and both eyes together, anticlockwise.

RESULT

they saw an anticlockwise MAE with their left eye only or with their right eye only, and a clockwise MAE when both eyes were open. A model of monocular and binocular inputs to motion sensitive neural channels is proposed.

Shared characteristics of stereopsis and the purely binocular process

Wolfe and Held (1981) Vision Res. 21, 1755-1759 demonstrated the existence in the human visual system of a purely binocular process. A purely binocular process is defined as a process that responds only to binocular stimulation and not to stimulation of either eye alone. In this paper, some of the characteristics of the purely binocular process are investigated. We find: (1) the process is less sensitive to high spatial frequencies than is the visual system as a whole. (2) It is insensitive to stimuli near the detection threshold for the visual system as a whole. (3) It makes a greater contribution to the appearance of vertically oriented stimuli than to the appearance of horizontally oriented stimuli. (4) The function of the purely binocular process can be disrupted by blurring the image in one eye (artificial anisometropia). Each of these properties of the purely binocular process is similar to the known characteristics of stereopsis. This suggests that the purely binocular process is a necessary stage in stereopsis.

Binocular adaptation that cannot be measured monocularly

The tilt aftereffect (TAE) is used to demonstrate the existence of a purely binocular process in human vision. A purely binocular process is a process that can be activated only by matched inputs to the two eyes. It is insensitive to monocular stimulation. The TAE can be produced by exposure to a bipartite field with the top tilted to the left of vertical, the bottom to the right. After such adaptation a pair of colinear lines appears bent in the opposite direction. A cyclopean random-dot stereogram can be used as an adapting stimulus. It produces a 2 degree TAE when a cyclopean test stimulus is used and a 1 degree TAE when a binocular but noncyclopean test stimulus is used. If the same noncyclopean pattern is viewed monocularly, no TAE is measurable. The TAE does not transfer from cyclopean adaptation to monocular testing. Apparently, cyclopean stimuli activate a 'purely binocular process' that cannot be activated by either eye alone.

A study of interocular transfer of spatial adaptation

The threshold-elevation aftereffect was measured ipsiocularly and interocularly following grating adaptation of one eye. The functions relating aftereffect magnitude to adapting contrast and adaptation time were similar under the two testing conditions, with interocular transfer remaining fairly constant; decay times were similar for ipsiocular and interocular aftereffects of comparable magnitude, and their frequency selectivities were the same. It is concluded that the stimulus-response characteristics of monocular and binocular spatial channels are fundamentally similar.