Interocular interaction of contrast and luminance signals in human primary visual cortex

Measuring the Interocular Delay and its Link to Visual Acuity in Amblyopia

Purpose

Research on interocular synchronicity in amblyopia has demonstrated a deficit in synchronization (i.e., a neural processing delay) between the two eyes. Current methods for assessing interocular delay are either costly or ineffective for assessments in severe amblyopia. In this study, we adapted a novel protocol developed by Burge and Cormack based on continuous target tracking to measure the interocular delay on a wide range of amblyopes. Our main aims were to assess the accessibility of this protocol and to investigate the relationship between interocular delay and visual acuity.

Methods

This protocol, which consists of tracking a target undergoing random lateral motion with the mouse cursor, is performed both binocularly and monocularly. The processing speed of a given eye is computed by comparing the changes in velocity of the target and mouse via cross-correlation. The difference in processing speed between the eyes defines the interocular delay.

Results

Cross-correlations revealed that the amblyopic eye tends to be delayed in time compared with the fellow eye. Interocular delays fell in the range of 0.6 to 114.0 ms. The magnitude of the delay was positively correlated with differences in interocular visual acuity (R2 = 0.484; P = 0.0002).

Conclusions

These results demonstrate the accessibility of this new protocol and further support the link between interocular synchronicity and amblyopia. Furthermore, we determine that the interocular delay in amblyopia is best explained by a deficit in the temporal integration of the amblyopic eye.

Visually driven functional MRI techniques for characterization of optic neuropathy

Optic neuropathies are conditions that cause disease to the optic nerve, and can result in loss of visual acuity and/or visual field defects. An improved understanding of how these conditions affect the entire visual system is warranted, to better predict and/or restore the visual loss. In this article, we review visually-driven functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies of optic neuropathies, including glaucoma and optic neuritis (ON); we also discuss traumatic optic neuropathy (TON). Optic neuropathy-related vision loss results in fMRI deficit within the visual cortex, and is often strongly correlated with clinical severity measures. Using predominantly flickering checkerboard stimuli, glaucoma studies indicated retinotopic-specific cortical alteration with more prominent deficits in advanced than in early glaucoma. Some glaucoma studies indicate a reorganized visual cortex. ON studies have indicated that the impacted cortical areas are briefly hyperactive. For ON, brain deficits are greater in the acute stages of the disease, followed by (near) normalization of responses of the LGN, visual cortex, and the dorsal visual stream, but not the ventral extrastriate cortex. Visually-driven fMRI is sensitive, at least in ON, in discriminating patients from controls, as well as the affected eye from the fellow eye within patients. The use of a greater variety of stimuli beyond checkerboards (e.g., visual motion and object recognition) in recent ON studies is encouraging, and needs to continue to disentangle the results in terms of change over time. Finally, visually-driven fMRI has not yet been applied in TON, although preliminary efforts suggest it may be feasible. Future fMRI studies of optic neuropathies should consider using more complex visual stimuli, and inter-regional analysis methods including functional connectivity. We suggest that a more systematic longitudinal comparison of optic neuropathies with advanced fMRI would provide improved diagnostic and prognostic information.

Stimulating both eyes with matching stimuli enhances V1 responses

Neurons in the primary visual cortex (V1) of primates play a key role in combining monocular inputs to form a binocular response. Although much has been gleaned from studying how V1 responds to discrepant (dichoptic) images, equally important is to understand how V1 responds to concordant (dioptic) images in the two eyes. Here, we investigated the extent to which concordant, balanced, zero-disparity binocular stimulation modifies V1 responses to varying stimulus contrast using intracranial multielectrode arrays. On average, binocular stimuli evoked stronger V1 activity than their monocular counterparts. This binocular facilitation scaled most proportionately with contrast during the initial transient. As V1 responses evolved, additional contrast-mediated dynamics emerged. Specifically, responses exhibited longer maintenance of facilitation for lower contrast and binocular suppression at high contrast. These results suggest that V1 processes concordant stimulation of both eyes in at least two sequential steps: initial response enhancement followed by contrast-dependent control of excitation.

Delayed Correction for Extrapolation in Amblyopia

Purpose

It has been suggested that amblyopes present impaired motion extrapolation mechanisms. In this study, we used the flash grab effect (FGE), the illusory mislocalization of a briefly flashed stimulus in the direction of a reversing moving background, to investigate whether the amblyopic visual system can correct overextrapolation.

Methods

Thirteen amblyopes and 13 control subjects participated in the experiment. We measured the monocular FGE magnitude for each subject. Two spatial frequency (2 and 8 cycles), two texture configurations (square wave or sine wave), and two speed conditions (270 degrees/s and 67.5 degrees/s) were tested. In addition, control subjects were further tested in reduced luminance conditions.

Results

Compared with controls, amblyopes exhibited a larger FGE magnitude both in their fellow eye (FE) and amblyopic eye (AE). The FGE magnitude of their AE was significantly larger than that of the FE. In a control experiment, we observed that the FGE magnitude increases with the decreasing of the luminance. The FGE magnitude of amblyopes fall into the same range as that of controls under reduced luminance conditions.

Conclusions

We observed a lager FGE in patients with amblyopia, which indicates that the amblyopic visual system does not accurately correct the overextrapolation when a moving object abruptly reverses its direction. This spatiotemporal processing deficit could be ascribed to delayed visual processing in the amblyopic visual system.

Steady-state measures of visual suppression

In the early visual system, suppression occurs between neurons representing different stimulus properties. This includes features such as orientation (cross-orientation suppression), eye-of-origin (interocular suppression) and spatial location (surround suppression), which are thought to involve distinct anatomical pathways. We asked if these separate routes to suppression can be differentiated by their pattern of gain control on the contrast response function measured in human participants using steady-state electroencephalography. Changes in contrast gain shift the contrast response function laterally, whereas changes in response gain scale the function vertically. We used a Bayesian hierarchical model to summarise the evidence for each type of gain control. A computational meta-analysis of 16 previous studies found the most evidence for contrast gain effects with overlaid masks, but no clear evidence favouring either response gain or contrast gain for other mask types. We then conducted two new experiments, comparing suppression from four mask types (monocular and dichoptic overlay masks, and aligned and orthogonal surround masks) on responses to sine wave grating patches flickering at 5Hz. At the occipital pole, there was strong evidence for contrast gain effects in all four mask types at the first harmonic frequency (5Hz). Suppression generally became stronger at more lateral electrode sites, but there was little evidence of response gain effects. At the second harmonic frequency (10Hz) suppression was stronger overall, and involved both contrast and response gain effects. Although suppression from different mask types involves distinct anatomical pathways, gain control processes appear to serve a common purpose, which we suggest might be to suppress less reliable inputs.

Short-term monocular deprivation induces an interocular delay

Short term monocular deprivation modulates ocular dominance, such that the previously deprived eye's contribution to the binocular percept increases, supposedly as a result of changes in contrast-gain. Therefore, the processing time of the previously patched eye would be expected to speed up as a result of an increase in contrast gain. In order to test this hypothesis, this study examines the effects of short-term monocular deprivation on interocular synchronicity. The present study uses a paradigm based on the Pulfrich phenomenon. The stimulus used for testing consists of elements defining a cylinder rotating in depth, that allows measurement of any interocular delay. The interocular delay was measured at baseline before patching and at outcome, after one hour of monocular deprivation with an opaque or translucent patch. Contrary to expectations, short-term monocular deprivation induces an interocular delay, albeit not always significant, in the previously patched eye. The amplitude of this effect is larger with opaque patching compared to translucent patching. These results are the first report of a non-beneficial effect - i.e. a slowing down in the processing time of the previously patched-eye. They indicate that the plasticity effects of monocular deprivation are not exclusively mediated by contrast gain mechanisms and that light adaptation mechanisms might also be involved in the plasticity resulting from short-term monocular deprivation.

Reduced Monocular Luminance Increases Monocular Temporal Synchrony Threshold in Human Adults

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to present our investigation of the influence of reduced monocular luminance on monocular and dichoptic temporal synchrony processing in healthy adults.

Methods

Ten adults with normal or corrected to normal visual acuity participated in our psychophysical study. The temporal synchrony threshold in dichoptic (experiment 1), monocular (experiment 2), and binocular (experiment 3) viewing configurations was obtained from each observer. Four flickering Gaussian dots (one synchronous and one asynchronous pair of two dots) were displayed, from which the observers were asked to identify the asynchronous pair. The temporal phase lag in the signal pair (asynchronous) but not in the reference pair (synchronous) was varied. In addition, a neutral density (ND) filter of various intensities (1.3 and 2.0 log units) was placed before the dominant eye throughout the behavioral measurement. In the end, dichoptic, monocular, and binocular thresholds were measured for each observer.

Results

With decreasing monocular luminance, the dichoptic threshold (2 ND vs. 0 ND, P < 0.001; 2 ND vs. 1.3 ND P = 0.001) and monocular threshold (2 ND vs. 0 ND, P < 0.001; 2 ND vs. 1.3 ND, P = 0.003) increased; however, the bincoular threshold remained unaffected (P = 0.576).

Conclusions

Reduced luminance induces delay and disturbs the discrimination of temporal synchrony. Our findings have clinical implications in visual disorders.

Contrast Normalization Accounts for Binocular Interactions in Human Striate and Extra-striate Visual Cortex

During binocular viewing, visual inputs from the two eyes interact at the level of visual cortex. Here we studied binocular interactions in human visual cortex, including both sexes, using source-imaged steady-state visual evoked potentials over a wide range of relative contrast between two eyes. The ROIs included areas V1, V3a, hV4, hMT⁺, and lateral occipital cortex. Dichoptic parallel grating stimuli in each eye modulated at distinct temporal frequencies allowed us to quantify spectral components associated with the individual stimuli from monocular inputs (self-terms) and responses due to interaction between the inputs from the two eyes (intermodulation [IM] terms). Data with self-terms revealed an interocular suppression effect, in which the responses to the stimulus in one eye were reduced when a stimulus was presented simultaneously to the other eye. The suppression magnitude varied depending on visual area, and the relative contrast between the two eyes. Suppression was strongest in V1 and V3a (50% reduction) and was least in lateral occipital cortex (20% reduction). Data with IM terms revealed another form of binocular interaction, compared with self-terms. IM response was strongest at V1 and was least in hV4. Fits of a family of divisive gain control models to both self- and IM-term responses within each cortical area indicated that both forms of binocular interaction shared a common gain control nonlinearity. However, our model fits revealed different patterns of binocular interaction along the cortical hierarchy, particularly in terms of excitatory and suppressive contributions.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Using source-imaged steady-state visual evoked potentials and frequency-domain analysis of dichoptic stimuli, we measured two forms of binocular interactions: one is associated with the individual stimuli that represent interocular suppression from each eye, and the other is a direct measure of interocular interaction between inputs from the two eyes. We demonstrated that both forms of binocular interactions share a common gain control mechanism in striate and extra-striate cortex. Furthermore, our model fits revealed different patterns of binocular interaction along the visual cortical hierarchy, particularly in terms of excitatory and suppressive contributions.

Binocular vision adaptively suppresses delayed monocular signals

A neutral density filter placed before one eye will produce a dichoptic imbalance in luminance, which attenuates responses to visual stimuli and lags neural signals from retina to cortex in the filtered eye. When stimuli are presented to both the filtered and unfiltered eye (i.e., binocularly), neural responses show little attenuation and no lag compared with their baseline counterpart. This suggests that binocular visual mechanisms must suppress the attenuated and delayed input from the filtered eye; however, the mechanisms involved remain unclear. Here, we used a Steady-State Visual Evoked Potential (SSVEP) technique to measure neural responses to monocularly and binocularly presented stimuli while observers wore an ND filter in front of their dominant eye. These data were well-described by a binocular summation model, which received the sinusoidal contrast modulation of the stimulus as input. We incorporated the influence of the ND filter with an impulse response function, which adjusted the input magnitude and phase in a biophysically plausible manner. The model captured the increase in attenuation and lag of neural signals for stimuli presented to the filtered eye as a function of filter strength, while also generating the filter phase-invariant responses from binocular presentation for EEG and psychophysical data. These results clarify how binocular visual mechanisms-specifically interocular suppression-can suppress the delayed and attenuated signals from the filtered eye and maintain normal neural signals under imbalanced luminance conditions.