The interaction of dichoptically presented spatial gratings

Binocular Summation and Suppression of Contrast Sensitivity in Strabismus, Fusion and Amblyopia

Purpose: Amblyopia and strabismus affect 2%–5% of the population and cause a broad range of visual deficits. The response to treatment is generally assessed using visual acuity, which is an insensitive measure of visual function and may, therefore, underestimate binocular vision gains in these patients. On the other hand, the contrast sensitivity function (CSF) generally takes longer to assess than visual acuity, but it is better correlated with improvement in a range of visual tasks and, notably, with improvements in binocular vision. The present study aims to assess monocular and binocular CSFs in amblyopia and strabismus patients.

Methods: Both monocular CSFs and the binocular CSF were assessed for subjects with amblyopia (n = 11), strabismus without amblyopia (n = 20), and normally sighted controls (n = 24) using a tablet-based implementation of the quick CSF, which can assess a full CSF in <3 min. Binocular summation was evaluated against a baseline model of simple probability summation.

Results: The CSF of amblyopic eyes was impaired at mid-to-high spatial frequencies compared to fellow eyes, strabismic eyes without amblyopia, and control eyes. Binocular contrast summation exceeded probability summation in controls, but not in subjects with amblyopia (with or without strabismus) or strabismus without amblyopia who were able to fuse at the test distance. Binocular summation was less than probability summation in strabismic subjects who were unable to fuse.

Conclusions: We conclude that monocular and binocular contrast sensitivity deficits define important characteristics of amblyopia and strabismus that are not captured by visual acuity alone and can be measured efficiently using the quick CSF.

Binocular summation for reflexive eye movements

Psychophysical studies and our own subjective experience suggest that, in natural viewing conditions (i.e., at medium to high contrasts), monocularly and binocularly viewed scenes appear very similar, with the exception of the improved depth perception provided by stereopsis. This phenomenon is usually described as a lack of binocular summation. We show here that there is an exception to this rule: Ocular following eye movements induced by the sudden motion of a large stimulus, which we recorded from three human subjects, are much larger when both eyes see the moving stimulus, than when only one eye does. We further discovered that this binocular advantage is a function of the interocular correlation between the two monocular images: It is maximal when they are identical, and reduced when the two eyes are presented with different images. This is possible only if the neurons that underlie ocular following are sensitive to binocular disparity.

The mechanism of short-term monocular deprivation is not simple: separate effects on parallel and cross-oriented dichoptic masking

Short-term deprivation of the input to one eye increases the strength of its influence on visual perception. This effect was first demonstrated using a binocular rivalry task. Incompatible stimuli are shown to the two eyes, and their competition for perceptual dominance is then measured. Further studies used a combination task, which measures the contribution of each eye to a fused percept. Both tasks show an effect of deprivation, but there have been inconsistencies between them. This suggests that the deprivation causes multiple effects. We used dichoptic masking to explore this possibility. We measured the contrast threshold for detecting a grating stimulus presented to the target eye. Thresholds were elevated when a parallel or cross-oriented grating mask was presented to the other eye. This masking effect was reduced by depriving the target eye for 150 minutes. We tested fourteen subjects with normal vision, and found individual differences in the magnitude of this reduction. Comparing the reduction found in each subject between the two masks (parallel vs. cross-oriented), we found no correlation. This indicates that there is not a single underlying effect of short-term monocular deprivation. Instead there are separate effects which can have different dependencies, and be probed by different tasks.

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 approximately 1) and there was weak facilitation at low mask contrasts. Anti-phase masking was weaker (a log-log slope of approximately 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 approximately +/-33 degrees 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 approximately +/-8 degrees , and a spatial frequency bandwidth of approximately 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.

Binocular enhancement of visual acuity

Using a computerized test system, we compared binocular and monocular visual optotype acuity, varying both contrast and contrast disparity between the two eyes. When contrast was the same in the two eyes, binocular acuity was better than best monocular acuity by an average of 0.045 log minimum angle of resolution, or 11%. When contrast differed in the two eyes, binocular acuity in most but not all cases was still better than the monocular acuity of the eye that received the higher contrast. This binocular advantage became smaller but remained significant as contrast disparity became larger. These results are most simply explained by threshold contrast summation of high-spatial-frequency letter components.

Two-pulse monocular and binocular interactions at the differential luminance threshold

Interaction between two pulses at the differential luminance threshold was studied for stimuli pairs presented to the same eye or to opposite eyes with an interocular delay. With monocular stimuli, the results replicated the earlier observations by Ikeda (1965) and Rashbass (1970) indicating linear interaction followed by rectification occurring at about 50-60 msec into the integration epoch. Binocular results were different, in accord with observations made in the contrast domain by Green and Blake (1981). Binocular stimuli of opposite polarity showed no cancellation. Binocular facilitation at threshold was found when either the stimuli of the same sign (+ + or - -) occurred with little interocular delay (stimulus onset asynchrony, SOA less than 15 msec), or the stimuli of the opposite sign (+ - or - +) were presented with an interocular delay between 15 and 100 msec SOA; the latter effect was at maximum with flashes 50 msec in duration presented with 50 msec interocular SOA. These results imply that binocular interaction takes place between rectified internal effects of luminance pulses. From the two-channel binocular model of Cogan (1987), binocular facilitation is attributed to the "fused" response derived from multiplicative excitation between same-sign (half-wave rectified), internal pulse responses. The absence of cancellation between simultaneous opposite-sign dichoptic stimuli is attributed to the "either-eye" binocular process dealing with full-wave rectified internal pulse responses to transient stimuli.

Binocular combination of contrast signals

We studied the detectability of dichoptically presented vertical grating patterns that varied in the ratio of the contrasts presented to the two eyes. The resulting threshold data fall on a binocular summation contour well described by a power summation equation with an exponent near 2. We studied the effect of adding one-dimensional visual noise, either correlated or uncorrelated between the eyes, to the grating patterns. The addition of uncorrelated noise elevated thresholds uniformly for all interocular ratios, while correlated noise elevated thresholds for stimuli whose ratios were near 1 more than thresholds for other stimuli. We also examined the effects of monocular adaptation to a high-contrast grating on the form of the summation contour. Such adaptation elevates threshold in a manner that varies continuously with the interocular contrast ratio of the test targets, and increases the amount of binocular summation. Each of several current models can explain some of our results, but no one of them seems capable of accounting for all three sets of data. We therefore develop a new multiple-channel model, the distribution model, which postulates a family of linear binocular channels that vary in their sensitivities to the two monocular inputs. This model can account for our data and those of others concerning binocular summation, masking, adaptation and interocular transfer. We conclude that there exists a system of ocular dominance channels in the human visual system.

Field processes in stereovision. A description of stereopsis appropriate to ophthalmology and visual perception

There is, as yet, no satisfactory theory of stereopsis, despite the fact that our overt knowledge of "solid seeing" is now about 150 years old, and that contributions to our understanding come today from many fields: ophthalmology, psychology, psychophysics, neurophysiology, computer modelling, and optical-TV display technology. We review herein, and demonstrate for the reader whenever possible, certain key perceptual properties of the stereoscopic event of which any general theory must take account: vector stereoscopy and the neural grid, depth in empty visual fields, the relationship between stereoscopic and cognitive contours, stereoscopic contour formation in the presence of blur (thus, at low levels of central visual acuity), the phenomenon of cortical locking and of neural grid evocation in the presence of either peripheral or central rivalry, certain unusual ranges of figural mismatch and the concept of the horopter in relation to modern single cell electroneurophysiology in animals and to the constancy of visual directions. Some comments are also made on the concept of disparity processing by single cortical neurons, together with a short discussion of the implications of certain views of the genetics of stereovision for the perception of novel random texture sine-wave stereograms. We conclude that any theory pertinent to ophthalmology and visual science must combine the global concepts of cortical integration, the neural lock and the neural grid, herein introduced, with the more classical concepts of particulate or local binocular cortical correspondence. Certain preliminary steps in this direction are presented.

Binocular contrast summation--I. Detection and discrimination

Binocular summation was evaluated for contrast detection and discrimination. Monocular and binocular forced-choice psychometric functions were measured for the detection of 0.5-c/deg sine-wave gratings presented alone (simple detection), or superimposed on identical background gratings (discrimination). The dependence of detectability d' on signal contrast C could be described by: d' = (C/C')n. C' is threshold contrast, and n is an index of the steepness of the psychometric function. n was near 2 for simple detection, near 1 for discrimination, and was approximately the same for monocular and binocular viewing. Monocular thresholds were about 1.5 times binocular thresholds for detection, but the ratio dropped for suprathreshold discrimination. These results reveal a dependence of binocular summation on background contrast. For simple detection, binocular detectabilities were at least twice monocular detectabilities . For contrast discrimination, the amount of binocular summation decreased. For a 25%-contrast background, there was little or no binocular summation. It is concluded that binocular contrast summation decreases as background contrast rises.

Spatial frequency masking in human vision: binocular interactions

Binocular contrast interactions in human vision were studied psychophysically. Thresholds were obtained for sinewave grating stimulation of the right eye in the presence of simultaneous masking gratings presented to the right eye (monocular masking) or left eye (dichoptic masking). In the first experiment, thresholds were measured at 0.25, 1.0, 4.0, and 16.0 cycle per degree (cpd) as a function of the contrast of masking gratings of identical frequency and phase. Thresholds rose nonmonotonically with masking contrast. At medium and high contrast levels, dichoptic masking was more effective in elevating contrast thresholds than monocular masking, and approached Weber's Law behavior. In the second experiment, spatial frequency tuning functions were obtained for test gratings at five spatial frequencies, by measuring threshold elevation as a function of the spatial frequency of constant-contrast masking gratings. At 1.0, 4.0, and 16.0 cpd, the tuning functions peaked at the test frequencies. The dichoptic tuning functions had a bandwidth of about 1 octave between half-maximum points, narrower than +/- 1 octave bandwidths of the monocular tuning functions. At 0.125 and 0.25 cpd, the tuning functions were broader and exhibited a shift in peak masking to frequencies above the test frequencies.