Lateral interactions across space reveal links between processing streams for luminance-modulated and contrast-modulated stimuli

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.

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.