Investigating local network interactions underlying first- and second-order processing

Contrast-modulated stimuli produce more superimposition and predominate perception when competing with comparable luminance-modulated stimuli during interocular grouping

Interocular grouping (IOG) is a binocular visual function that can arise during multi-stable perception. IOG perception was initiated using split-grating stimuli constructed from luminance (L), luminance-modulated noise (LM) and contrast-modulated noise (CM). In Experiment 1, three different visibility levels were used for L and LM (or first-order) stimuli, and compared to fixed-visibility CM (or second-order) stimuli. Eight binocularly normal participants indicated whether they perceived full horizontal or vertical gratings, superimposition, or other (piecemeal and eye-of-origin) percepts. CM stimuli rarely generated full IOG, but predominantly generated superimposition. In Experiment 2, Levelt's modified laws were tested for IOG in nine participants. Split-gratings presented to each eye contained different visibility LM gratings, or LM and CM gratings. The results for the LM-vs-LM conditions mostly followed the predictions of Levelt's modified laws, whereas the results for the LM-vs-CM conditions did not. Counterintuitively, when high-visibility LM and low-visibility CM split-gratings were used, high-visibility LM components did not predominate IOG perception. Our findings suggest that higher proportions of superimposition during CM-vs-CM viewing are due to binocular combination, rather than mutual inhibition. It implies that IOG percepts are more likely to be mediated at an earlier monocular, rather than a binocular stage. Our previously proposed conceptual framework for conventional binocular rivalry, which includes asymmetric feedback, visual saliency, or a combination of both (Skerswetat et al. Sci Rep 8:14432, 2018), might also account for IOG. We speculate that opponency neurons might mediate coherent percepts when dissimilar information separately enters the eyes.

Object size determines the spatial spread of visual time

A key question for temporal processing research is how the nervous system extracts event duration, despite a notable lack of neural structures dedicated to duration encoding. This is in stark contrast with the orderly arrangement of neurons tasked with spatial processing. In this study, we examine the linkage between the spatial and temporal domains. We use sensory adaptation techniques to generate after-effects where perceived duration is either compressed or expanded in the opposite direction to the adapting stimulus' duration. Our results indicate that these after-effects are broadly tuned, extending over an area approximately five times the size of the stimulus. This region is directly related to the size of the adapting stimulus-the larger the adapting stimulus the greater the spatial spread of the after-effect. We construct a simple model to test predictions based on overlapping adapted versus non-adapted neuronal populations and show that our effects cannot be explained by any single, fixed-scale neural filtering. Rather, our effects are best explained by a self-scaled mechanism underpinned by duration selective neurons that also pool spatial information across earlier stages of visual processing.

More superimposition for contrast-modulated than luminance-modulated stimuli during binocular rivalry

Luminance-modulated noise (LM) and contrast-modulated noise (CM) gratings were presented with interocularly correlated, uncorrelated and anti-correlated binary noise to investigate their contributions to mixed percepts, specifically piecemeal and superimposition, during binocular rivalry. Stimuli were sine-wave gratings of 2 c/deg presented within 2 deg circular apertures. The LM stimulus contrast was 0.1 and the CM stimulus modulation depth was 1.0, equating to approximately 5 and 7 times detection threshold, respectively. Twelve 45 s trials, per noise configuration, were carried out. Fifteen participants with normal vision indicated via button presses whether an exclusive, piecemeal or superimposed percept was seen. For all noise conditions LM stimuli generated more exclusive visibility, and lower proportions of superimposition. CM stimuli led to greater proportions and longer periods of superimposition. For both stimulus types, correlated interocular noise generated more superimposition than did anti- or uncorrelated interocular noise. No significant effect of stimulus type (LM vs CM) or noise configuration (correlated, uncorrelated, anti-correlated) on piecemeal perception was found. Exclusive visibility was greater in proportion, and perceptual changes more numerous, during binocular rivalry for CM stimuli when interocular noise was not correlated. This suggests that mutual inhibition, initiated by non-correlated noise CM gratings, occurs between neurons processing luminance noise (first-order component), as well as those processing gratings (second-order component). Therefore, first- and second-order components can contribute to overall binocular rivalry responses. We suggest the addition of a new well to the current energy landscape model for binocular rivalry that takes superimposition into account.

Orientation-cue invariant population responses to contrast-modulated and phase-reversed contour stimuli in macaque V1 and V2

Visual scenes can be readily decomposed into a variety of oriented components, the processing of which is vital for object segregation and recognition. In primate V1 and V2, most neurons have small spatio-temporal receptive fields responding selectively to oriented luminance contours (first order), while only a subgroup of neurons signal non-luminance defined contours (second order). So how is the orientation of second-order contours represented at the population level in macaque V1 and V2? Here we compared the population responses in macaque V1 and V2 to two types of second-order contour stimuli generated either by modulation of contrast or phase reversal with those to first-order contour stimuli. Using intrinsic signal optical imaging, we found that the orientation of second-order contour stimuli was represented invariantly in the orientation columns of both macaque V1 and V2. A physiologically constrained spatio-temporal energy model of V1 and V2 neuronal populations could reproduce all the recorded population responses. These findings suggest that, at the population level, the primate early visual system processes the orientation of second-order contours initially through a linear spatio-temporal filter mechanism. Our results of population responses to different second-order contour stimuli support the idea that the orientation maps in primate V1 and V2 can be described as a spatial-temporal energy map.

Foveal visual acuity is worse and shows stronger contour interaction effects for contrast-modulated than luminance-modulated Cs

Contrast-modulated (CM) stimuli are processed by spatial mechanisms that operate at larger spatial scales than those processing luminance-modulated (LM) stimuli and may be more prone to deficits in developing, amblyopic, and aging visual systems. Understanding neural mechanisms of contour interaction or crowding will help in detecting disorders of spatial vision. In this study, contour interaction effects on visual acuity for LM and CM C and bar stimuli are assessed in normal foveal vision. In Experiment 1, visual acuity is measured for all-LM and all-CM stimuli, at ~3.5× above their respective modulation thresholds. In Experiment 2, visual acuity is measured for Cs and bars of different type (LM C with CM bars and vice versa). Visual acuity is degraded for CM compared with LM Cs (0.46 ± 0.04 logMAR vs. 0.18 ± 0.04 logMAR). With nearby bars, CM acuity is degraded further (0.23 ± 0.01 logMAR or ~2 lines on an acuity chart), significantly more than LM acuity (0.11 ± 0.01 logMAR, ~1 line). Contour interaction for CM stimuli extends over greater distances (arcmin) than it does for LM stimuli, but extents are similar with respect to acuities (~3.5× the C gap width). Contour interaction is evident when the Cs and bars are defined differently: it is stronger when an LM C is flanked by CM bars (0.17 ± 0.03 logMAR) than when a CM C is flanked by LM bars (0.08 ± 0.02 logMAR). Our results suggest that contour interaction for foveally viewed acuity stimuli involves feature integration, such that the outputs of receptive fields representing Cs and bars are combined. Contour interaction operates at LM and CM representational stages, it can occur across stage, and it is enhanced at the CM stage. Greater contour interaction for CM Cs and bars could hold value for visual acuity testing and earlier diagnosis of conditions for which crowding is important, such as in amblyopia.

Differential effects of exogenous and endogenous attention on second-order texture contrast sensitivity

The visual system can use a rich variety of contours to segment visual scenes into distinct perceptually coherent regions. However, successfully segmenting an image is a computationally expensive process. Previously we have shown that exogenous attention--the more automatic, stimulus-driven component of spatial attention--helps extract contours by enhancing contrast sensitivity for second-order, texture-defined patterns at the attended location, while reducing sensitivity at unattended locations, relative to a neutral condition. Interestingly, the effects of exogenous attention depended on the second-order spatial frequency of the stimulus. At parafoveal locations, attention enhanced second-order contrast sensitivity to relatively high, but not to low second-order spatial frequencies. In the present study we investigated whether endogenous attention-the more voluntary, conceptually-driven component of spatial attention--affects second-order contrast sensitivity, and if so, whether its effects are similar to those of exogenous attention. To that end, we compared the effects of exogenous and endogenous attention on the sensitivity to second-order, orientation-defined, texture patterns of either high or low second-order spatial frequencies. The results show that, like exogenous attention, endogenous attention enhances second-order contrast sensitivity at the attended location and reduces it at unattended locations. However, whereas the effects of exogenous attention are a function of the second-order spatial frequency content, endogenous attention affected second-order contrast sensitivity independent of the second-order spatial frequency content. This finding supports the notion that both exogenous and endogenous attention can affect second-order contrast sensitivity, but that endogenous attention is more flexible, benefitting performance under different conditions.

Responses to second-order texture modulations undergo surround suppression

First-order (contrast) surround suppression has been well characterized both psychophysically and physiologically,but relatively little is known as to whether the perception of second-order visual stimuli exhibits analogous center–surround interactions. Second-order surround suppression was characterized by requiring subjects to detect second-order modulation in stimuli presented alone or embedded in a surround.Both contrast- (CM) and orientation-modulated (OM) stimuli were used. For most subjects and both OM and CM stimuli, second-order surrounds caused thresholds to be higher, indicative of second-order suppression. For CM stimuli, suppression was orientation-specific, i.e., higher thresholds for parallel than for orthogonal surrounds. However, the evidence for orientation specificity of suppression for OM stimuli was weaker. These results suggest that normalization, leading to surround suppression, operates at multiple stages in cortical processing.

Interaction of first- and second-order signals in the extraction of global-motion and optic-flow

The intention of this series of experiments was to determine the extent to which the pathways sensitive to first-order and second-order motion are independent of one another at, and above, the level of global motion integration. We used translational, radial and rotational motion stimuli containing luminance-modulated dots, contrast-modulated dots, or a mixture of both. Our results show that the two classes of motion stimuli interact perceptually in a global motion coherence task, and the extent of this interaction is governed by whether the two varieties of local motion signal produce an equivalent response in the pathways that encode each type of motion. This provides strong psychophysical evidence that global motion and optic flow processing are cue-invariant. The fidelity of the first-order motion signal was moderated by either reducing the luminance of the dots or by increasing the displacement of the dots on each positional update. The experiments were carried out with two different types of second-order elements (contrast-modulated dots and flicker-modulated dots) and the results were comparable, suggesting that these findings are generalisable to a variety of second-order stimuli. In addition, the interaction between the two different types of second-order stimuli was investigated and we found that the relative modulation depth was also crucial to whether the two populations interacted. We conclude that the relative output of local motion sensors sensitive to either first-order or second-order motion dictates their weight in subsequent cue-invariant global motion computations.

The effect of dot speed and density on the development of global motion perception

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of dot speed and dot density on the development of global motion perception by comparing the performance of adults and children (5-6years old) on a direction-discrimination task. Motion coherence thresholds were measured at two dot speeds (1 and 4deg/s) and three dot densities (1, 15, 30dots/deg(2)). Adult coherence thresholds were constant at approximately 9%, regardless of speed or density. Child coherence thresholds were significantly higher across conditions, and were most immature at the slow speed and at the sparse density. Thus, the development of global motion perception depends heavily on stimulus parameters. This finding can account for some of the discrepancy in the current developmental literature. Our results, however, caution against making general claims about motion deficits in clinical populations based on only a single measurement at a specific combination of speed and density.

Keep your eyes on development: the behavioral and neurophysiological development of visual mechanisms underlying form processing

Visual form perception is essential for correct interpretation of, and interaction with, our environment. Form perception depends on visual acuity and processing of specific form characteristics, such as luminance contrast, spatial frequency, color, orientation, depth, and even motion information. As other cognitive processes, form perception matures with age. This paper aims at providing a concise overview of our current understanding of the typical development, from birth to adulthood, of form-characteristic processing, as measured both behaviorally and neurophysiologically. Two main conclusions can be drawn. First, the current literature conveys that for most reviewed characteristics a developmental pattern is apparent. These trajectories are discussed in relation to the organization of the visual system. The second conclusion is that significant gaps in the literature exist for several age-ranges. To complete our understanding of the typical and, by consequence, atypical development of visual mechanisms underlying form processing, future research should uncover these missing segments.

Visual chimaeras obtained with the Riesz transform

Similar to an auditory chimaera (Smith et al, 2002 Nature 416 87-90), a visual chimaera can be defined as a synthetic image which has the fine spatial structure of one natural image and the envelope of another image in each spatial frequency band. Visual chimaeras constructed in this way could be useful to vision scientists interested in the study of interactions between first-order and second-order visual processing. Although it is almost trivial to generate 1-D chimaeras by means of the Hilbert transform and the analytic signal, problems arise in multidimensional signals like images given that the partial directional Hilbert transform and current 2-D demodulation algorithms are anisotropic or orientation-variant procedures. Here, we present a computational procedure to synthesise visual chimaeras by means of the Riesz transform--an isotropic generalisation of the Hilbert transform for multidimensional signals--and the associated monogenic signal--the vector-valued function counterpart of the analytic signal in which the Riesz transform replaces the Hilbert transform. Examples of visual chimaeras are shown for same/different category images.

Atypical lateral connectivity: a neural basis for altered visuospatial processing in autism

BACKGROUND

Autistic perception encompasses both inferior and superior performance on different types of visuospatial tasks. Influential neurocognitive models relevant to atypical perception (i.e., weak central coherence, enhanced perceptual functioning) can, to differing degrees, account for these findings. However, the neural underpinnings mediating atypical visuospatial autistic perception have yet to be elucidated.

METHODS

In the present study, we used a lateral masking paradigm to assess the functional integrity of lateral interactions mediating visuospatial information processing within early visual areas of autistic (n = 18) and nonautistic (n = 15) observers. Detection thresholds were measured for centrally presented Gabor targets flanked collinearly at different distances (experiment 1) and flanked orthogonally at different contrasts (experiment 2).

RESULTS

Autistic and nonautistic groups showed increased target sensitivity when the distance between collinear targets and flankers was small (3 lambda) but not large (6 lambda). However, the effect of small-distance facilitation was significantly greater for the autistic group. In addition, we observed a group-specific effect of contrast: in the autistic group, target sensitivity was enhanced by low flanker contrasts of both 5% and 10% luminance difference, whereas for the nonautistic group, this effect occurred at 10% contrast only.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support the idea that atypical visuospatial perception in autism may originate from altered lateral connectivity within primary visual areas, differentially affecting perception at the earliest levels of feature extraction.

Exogenous attention enhances 2nd-order contrast sensitivity

Natural scenes contain a rich variety of contours that the visual system extracts to segregate the retinal image into perceptually coherent regions. Covert spatial attention helps extract contours by enhancing contrast sensitivity for 1st-order, luminance-defined patterns at attended locations, while reducing sensitivity at unattended locations, relative to neutral attention allocation. However, humans are also sensitive to 2nd-order patterns such as spatial variations of texture, which are predominant in natural scenes and cannot be detected by linear mechanisms. We assess whether and how exogenous attention--the involuntary and transient capture of spatial attention--affects the contrast sensitivity of channels sensitive to 2nd-order, texture-defined patterns. Using 2nd-order, texture-defined stimuli, we demonstrate that exogenous attention increases 2nd-order contrast sensitivity at the attended location, while decreasing it at unattended locations, relative to a neutral condition. By manipulating both 1st- and 2nd-order spatial frequency, we find that the effects of attention depend both on 2nd-order spatial frequency of the stimulus and the observer's 2nd-order spatial resolution at the target location. At parafoveal locations, attention enhances 2nd-order contrast sensitivity to high, but not to low 2nd-order spatial frequencies; at peripheral locations attention also enhances sensitivity to low 2nd-order spatial frequencies. Control experiments rule out the possibility that these effects might be due to an increase in contrast sensitivity at the 1st-order stage of visual processing. Thus, exogenous attention affects 2nd-order contrast sensitivity at both attended and unattended locations.

The role of background statistics in face adaptation

Cross-adaptation is widely used to probe whether different stimuli share common neural mechanisms. For example, that adaptation to second-order stimuli usually produces little aftereffect on first-order stimuli has been interpreted as reflecting their separate processing. However, such results appear to contradict the cue-invariant responses of many visual cells. We tested the novel hypothesis that the null aftereffect arises from the large difference in the backgrounds of first- and second-order stimuli. We created second-order faces with happy and sad facial expressions specified solely by local directions of moving random dots on a static-dot background, without any luminance-defined form cues. As expected, adaptation to such a second-order face did not produce a facial-expression aftereffect on the first-order faces. However, consistent with our hypothesis, simply adding static random dots to the first-order faces to render their backgrounds more similar to that of the adapting motion face led to a significant aftereffect. This background similarity effect also occurred between different types of first-order stimuli: real-face adaptation transferred to cartoon faces only when noise with correlation statistics of real faces or natural images was added to the cartoon faces. These findings suggest the following: (1) statistical similarities between the featureless backgrounds of the adapting and test stimuli can influence aftereffects, as in contingent adaptation; (2) weak or null cross-adaptation aftereffects should be interpreted with caution; and (3) luminance- and motion-direction-defined forms, and local features and global statistics, converge in the representation of faces.

Learning to identify near-threshold luminance-defined and contrast-defined letters in observers with amblyopia

We assessed whether or not the sensitivity for identifying luminance-defined and contrast-defined letters improved with training in a group of amblyopic observers who have passed the critical period of development. In Experiment 1, we tracked the contrast threshold for identifying luminance-defined letters with training in a group of 11 amblyopic observers. Following training, six observers showed a reduction in thresholds, averaging 20%, for identifying luminance-defined letters. This improvement transferred extremely well to the untrained task of identifying contrast-defined letters (average improvement=38%) but did not transfer to an acuity measurement. Seven of the 11 observers were subsequently trained on identifying contrast-defined letters in Experiment 2. Following training, five of these seven observers demonstrated a further improvement, averaging 17%, for identifying contrast-defined letters. This improvement did not transfer to the untrained task of identifying luminance-defined letters. Our findings are consistent with predictions based on the locus of learning for first- and second-order stimuli according to the filter-rectifier-filter model for second-order visual processing.

Distinct position assignment mechanisms revealed by cross-order motion

Motion perception influences perceived position. It has been shown that first-order (luminance defined) motion shifts perceived position across a wide range of spatial and temporal frequencies. On the other hand, second-order (contrast defined) motion shifts perceived position over a narrow range of temporal frequencies, regardless of spatial frequency [Bressler, D. W., & Whitney, D. (2006). Second-order motion shifts perceived position. Vision Research, 46(6-7), 1120-1128]. These results suggest the presence of distinct position assignment mechanisms for first- and second-order motion. We investigated whether the first- and second-order systems independently encode and assign the position of a moving stimulus. To measure motion induced position shift we presented two horizontally offset Gabors placed above and below a central fixation point, with sine wave carriers drifting in opposite directions. Subjects judged the position of the top Gabor relative to the bottom one. We used both first-order Gabors (sinusoidal luminance modulation of a dynamic noise carrier enveloped by a static Gaussian) and second-order Gabors (sinusoidal contrast modulation of a dynamic noise carrier enveloped by a static Gaussian). Results showed a strong position shift in the direction of the carrier motion when both Gabors were first-order, a weak position shift when both Gabors were second-order, and no appreciable position shift when one Gabor was first-order and the other was second-order (cross-order motion). The absence of a position shift using cross-order motion supports the hypothesis that the two motion systems independently encode and assign the position of a moving object. These results are consistent with those of experiments investigating global spatial interactions between static first-order and second-order Gabor patches, indicating a commonality in the underlying spatial integration processes.

Crowding between first- and second-order letter stimuli in normal foveal and peripheral vision

Evidence that the detection of first- and second-order visual stimuli is processed by separate pathways abounds. This study asked whether first- and second-order stimuli remain independent at the stage of processing where crowding occurs. We measured thresholds for identifying a first-order (luminance defined) or second-order (contrast defined) target letter in the presence of two second- or first-order flanking letters. For comparison, we also measured thresholds when the target and flanking letters were all first or second order. Contrast of the flankers was 1.6 times their respective contrast thresholds. Measurements were obtained at the fovea and 10 degrees in the lower visual field of four normally sighted observers. Two observers were also tested at 10 degrees nasal visual field. As expected, in both the fovea and periphery, the magnitude of crowding (threshold elevation) was maximal at the closest letter separation and decreased as letter separation increased. The magnitude of crowding was greater for second- than for first-order target letters, independent of the order type of flankers; however, the critical distance for crowding was similar for first- and second-order letters. Substantial crossover crowding occurred when the target and flanking letters were of different order type. Our finding of substantial interaction between first- and second-order stimuli suggests that the processing of these stimuli is not independent at the stage of processing at which crowding occurs.

Separate first- and second-order processing is supported by spatial summation estimates at the fovea and eccentrically

We estimated spatial summation areas for the detection of luminance-modulated (LM) and contrast-modulated (CM) blobs at the fovea, 2.5, 5 and 10 deg eccentrically. Gaussian profiles were added or multiplied to binary white noise to create LM and CM blob stimuli and these were used to psychophysically estimate detection thresholds and spatial summation areas. The results reveal significantly larger summation areas for detecting CM than LM blobs across eccentricity. These differences are comparable to receptive field size estimates made in V1 and V2. They support the notion that separate spatial processing occurs for the detection of LM and CM stimuli.

Second-order spatial frequency and orientation channels in human vision

We compared the number of spatial frequency and orientation mechanisms underlying first- versus second-order processing by measuring discrimination at detection threshold for first- and second-order Gabors to determine the smallest difference in spatial frequency and orientation that permits accurate discrimination at threshold. For second-order gratings, the number of channels is the same as for first-order gratings for spatial frequencies up to about 2 cpd; however, there are fewer second-order channels at higher spatial frequencies. In contrast, the number of labeled channels for orientation is the same for first- and second-order gratings. In conclusion, our findings provide evidence for distinct spatial frequency and orientation labeled detectors in second-order visual processing. We also show that, relative to first-order, there are fewer second-order channels processing higher spatial frequencies. This is consistent with a filter-rectify-filter scheme for second-order in which the second stage of filtering is at lower spatial frequencies.

Learning to identify contrast-defined letters in peripheral vision

Performance for identifying luminance-defined letters in peripheral vision improves with training. The purpose of the present study was to examine whether performance for identifying contrast-defined letters also improves with training in peripheral vision, and whether any improvement transfers to luminance-defined letters. Eight observers were trained to identify contrast-defined letters presented singly at 10 degrees eccentricity in the inferior visual field. Before and after training, we measured observers' thresholds for identifying luminance-defined and contrast-defined letters, embedded within a field of white luminance noise (maximum luminance contrast=0, 0.25, and 0.5), at the same eccentric location. Each training session consisted of 10 blocks (100 trials per block) of identifying contrast-defined letters at a background noise contrast of 0.5. Letters (x-height=4.2 degrees) were the 26 lowercase letters of the Times-Roman alphabet. Luminance-defined letters were generated by introducing a luminance difference between the stimulus letter and its mid-gray background. The background noise covered both the letter and its background. Contrast-defined letters were generated by introducing a differential noise contrast between the group of pixels that made up the stimulus letter and the group of pixels that made up the background. Following training, observers showed a significant reduction in threshold for identifying contrast-defined letters (p<0.0001). Averaged across observers and background noise contrasts, the reduction was 25.8%, with the greatest reduction (32%) occurring at the trained background noise contrast. There was virtually no transfer of improvement to luminance-defined letters, or to an untrained letter size (2 x original), or an untrained retinal location (10 degrees superior field). In contrast, learning transferred completely to the untrained contralateral eye. Our results show that training improves performance for identifying contrast-defined letters in peripheral vision. This perceptual learning effect seems to be stimulus-specific, as it shows no transfer to the identification of luminance-defined letters. The complete interocular transfer, and the retinotopic (retinal location) and size specificity of the learning effect are consistent with the properties of neurons in early visual area V2.

Orientation-selective adaptation to first- and second-order patterns in human visual cortex

Second-order textures-patterns that cannot be detected by mechanisms sensitive only to luminance changes-are ubiquitous in visual scenes, but the neuronal mechanisms mediating perception of such stimuli are not well understood. We used an adaptation protocol to measure neural activity in the human brain selective for the orientation of second-order textures. Functional MRI (fMRI) responses were measured in three subjects to presentations of first- and second-order probe gratings after adapting to a high-contrast first- or second-order grating that was either parallel or orthogonal to the probe gratings. First-order (LM) stimuli were generated by modulating the stimulus luminance. Second-order stimuli were generated by modulating the contrast (CM) or orientation (OM) of a first-order carrier. We used four combinations of adapter and probe stimuli: LM:LM, CM:CM, OM:OM, and LM:OM. The fourth condition tested for cross-modal adaptation with first-order adapter and second-order probe stimuli. Attention was diverted from the stimulus by a demanding task at fixation. Both first- and second-order stimuli elicited orientation-selective adaptation in multiple cortical visual areas, including V1, V2, V3, V3A/B, a newly identified visual area anterior to dorsal V3 that we have termed LO1, hV4, and VO1. For first-order stimuli (condition LM:LM), the adaptation was no larger in extrastriate areas than in V1, implying that the orientation-selective first-order (luminance) adaptation originated in V1. For second-order stimuli (conditions CM:CM and OM:OM), the magnitude of adaptation, relative to the absolute response magnitude, was significantly larger in VO1 (and for condition CM:CM, also in V3A/B and LO1) than in V1, suggesting that second-order stimulus orientation was extracted by additional processing after V1. There was little difference in the amplitude of adaptation between the second-order conditions. No consistent effect of adaptation was found in the cross-modal condition LM:OM, in agreement with psychophysical evidence for weak interactions between first- and second-order stimuli and computational models of separate mechanisms for first- and second-order visual processing.

Spatial interactions reveal inhibitory cortical networks in human amblyopia

Humans with amblyopia have a well-documented loss of sensitivity for first-order, or luminance defined, visual information. Recent studies show that they also display a specific loss of sensitivity for second-order, or contrast defined, visual information; a type of image structure encoded by neurons found predominantly in visual area A18/V2. In the present study, we investigate whether amblyopia disrupts the normal architecture of spatial interactions in V2 by determining the contrast detection threshold of a second-order target in the presence of second-order flanking stimuli. Adjacent flanks facilitated second-order detectability in normal observers. However, in marked contrast, they suppressed detection in each eye of the majority of amblyopic observers. Furthermore, strabismic observers with no loss of visual acuity show a similar pattern of detection suppression. We speculate that amblyopia results in predominantly inhibitory cortical interactions between second-order neurons.