Contrast and assimilation on different depth planes

Retinal Lateral Inhibition Provides the Biological Basis of Long-Range Spatial Induction

Retinal lateral inhibition is one of the conventional efficient coding mechanisms in the visual system that is produced by interneurons that pool signals over a neighborhood of presynaptic feedforward cells and send inhibitory signals back to them. Thus, the receptive-field (RF) of a retinal ganglion cell has a center-surround receptive-field (RF) profile that is classically represented as a difference-of-Gaussian (DOG) adequate for efficient spatial contrast coding. The DOG RF profile has been attributed to produce the psychophysical phenomena of brightness induction, in which the perceived brightness of an object is affected by that of its vicinity, either shifting away from it (brightness contrast) or becoming more similar to it (brightness assimilation) depending on the size of the surfaces surrounding the object. While brightness contrast can be modeled using a DOG with a narrow surround, brightness assimilation requires a wide suppressive surround. Early retinal studies determined that the suppressive surround of a retinal ganglion cell is narrow (< 100–300 μm; ‘classic RF’), which led researchers to postulate that brightness assimilation must originate at some post-retinal, possibly cortical, stage where long-range interactions are feasible. However, more recent studies have reported that the retinal interneurons also exhibit a spatially wide component (> 500–1000 μm). In the current study, we examine the effect of this wide interneuron RF component in two biophysical retinal models and show that for both of the retinal models it explains the long-range effect evidenced in simultaneous brightness induction phenomena and that the spatial extent of this long-range effect of the retinal model responses matches that of perceptual data. These results suggest that the retinal lateral inhibition mechanism alone can regulate local as well as long-range spatial induction through the narrow and wide RF components of retinal interneurons, arguing against the existing view that spatial induction is operated by two separate local vs. long-range mechanisms.

Influences of motion and depth on brightness induction: an illusory transparency effect?

To experiments were performed to investigate whether motion and binocular disparity influence brightness induction, and whether the effects of motion and binocular disparity, if any, interact with each other. In order to introduce motion, textured backgrounds were used as the inducing field. The results showed that motion and/or crossed disparity reduce brightness induction, whereas uncrossed disparity increases it. The effect of motion and the effect of disparity are independent of each other and additive, which suggests that, to the extent that brightness induction reflects segmentation of objects, motion and binocular disparity serve independently to segment objects from their background. The difference between the effects of crossed and uncrossed disparity can be explained by what we call 'illusory transparency'.

On the determinants of surface brightness

The brightness of an achromatic surface with luminance S on an achromatic background with luminance B varies with S, with B, and with the luminance step deltaL at the border of the surface. In agreement with previous findings indicating that the visual system can perform as a photometer, the results of the two experiments reported here show that S and B determined surface brightness independently of deltaL when the surface was adjacent to and when it was separated from the background. This finding suggests that surface brightness depends on the integration of neural signals representing magnitudes of absolute luminance. A weighted-average model of this integration is proposed.

Assimilation: central and peripheral effects

Assimilation and contrast have opposite effects: Contrast leads to an increase of perceived differences between neighbouring fields, whereas assimilation leads to a reduction. It is relatively easy to demonstrate these effects, but the precise localisation of these effects in the perceptual system is not yet possible. In an experiment the strength of assimilation effects was modified by adding spatial noise. By varying the localisation in perceived space of the added noise (by presentation of the noise pattern with different binocular disparities) the masking effect of this noise can be influenced. Masking caused by binocularly disparate noise is less than masking caused by binocularly non-disparate noise. It is concluded that the effect at least partly occurs beyond the (binocular) locus of separation in different depth planes. A similar approach, involving moving noise, is also presented. Finally, several demonstrations show that images that are peripherally similar can give rise to differences in the perceived amount of assimilation. These effects further indicate that a central mechanism is involved in assimilation.