Characteristics of the filled-in surface at the blind spot

Did you see it? A Python tool for psychophysical assessment of the human blind spot

The blind spot is a region in the temporal monocular visual field in humans, which corresponds to a physiological scotoma within the nasal hemi-retina. This region has no photoreceptors, so is insensitive to visual stimulation. There is no corresponding perceptual scotoma because the visual stimulation is “filled-in” by the visual system. Investigations of visual perception in and around the blind spot allow us to investigate this filling-in process. However, because the location and size of the blind spot are individually variable, experimenters must first map the blind spot in every observer. We present an open-source tool, which runs in Psychopy software, to estimate the location and size of the blind spot psychophysically. The tool will ideally be used with an Eyelink eye-tracker (SR Research), but it can also run in standalone mode. Here, we explain the rationale for the tool and demonstrate its validity in normally-sighted observers. We develop a detailed map of the blind spot in one observer. Then, in a group of 12 observers, we propose a more efficient, pragmatic method to define a “safe zone” within the blind spot, for which the experimenter can be fully confident that visual stimuli will not be seen. Links are provided to this open-source tool and a user manual.

Stronger perceptual filling-in of spatiotemporal information in the blind spot compared with artificial gaps

Complete visual information about a scene and the objects within it is often not available to us. For example, objects may be partly occluded by other objects or have sections missing. In the retinal blind spot, there are no photoreceptors and visual input is not detected. However, owing to perceptual filling-in by the visual system we often do not perceive these gaps. There is a lack of consensus on how much of the mechanism for perceptual filling-in is similar in the case of a natural scotoma, such as the blind spot, and artificial scotomata, such as sections of the stimulus being physically removed. Part of the difficulty in assessing this relationship arises from a lack of direct comparisons between the two cases, with artificial scotomata being tested in different locations in the visual field compared with the blind spot. The peripheral location of the blind spot may explain its enhanced filling-in compared with artificial scotomata, as reported in previous studies. In the present study, we directly compared perceptual filling-in of spatiotemporal information in the blind spot and artificial gaps of the same size and eccentricity. We found stronger perceptual filling-in in the blind spot, suggesting improved filling-in for the blind spot reported in previous studies cannot be simply attributed to its peripheral location.

Illusory occlusion affects stereoscopic depth perception

When occlusion and binocular disparity cues conflict, what visual features determine how they combine? Sensory cues, such as T-junctions, have been suggested to be necessary for occlusion to influence stereoscopic depth perception. Here we show that illusory occlusion, with no retinal sensory cues, interacts with binocular disparity when perceiving depth. We generated illusory occlusion using stimuli filled in across the retinal blind spot. Observers viewed two bars forming a cross with the intersection positioned within the blind spot. One of the bars was presented binocularly with a disparity signal; the other was presented monocularly, extending through the blind spot, with no defined disparity. When the monocular bar was perceived as filled in through the blind spot, it was perceived as occluding the binocular bar, generating illusory occlusion. We found that this illusory occlusion influenced perceived stereoscopic depth: depth estimates were biased to be closer or farther, depending on whether a bar was perceived as in front of or behind the other bar, respectively. Therefore, the perceived relative depth position, based on filling-in cues, set boundaries for interpreting metric stereoscopic depth cues. This suggests that filling-in can produce opaque surface representations that can trump other depth cues such as disparity.

On the functional order of binocular rivalry and blind spot filling-in

Binocular rivalry is an important phenomenon for understanding the mechanisms of visual awareness. Here we assessed the functional locus of binocular rivalry relative to blind spot filling-in, which is thought to transpire in V1, thus providing a reference point for assessing the locus of rivalry. We conducted two experiments to explore the functional order of binocular rivalry and blind spot filling-in. Experiment 1 examined if the information filled-in at the blind spot can engage in rivalry with a physical stimulus at the corresponding location in the fellow eye. Participants' perceptual reports showed no difference between this condition and a condition where filling-in was precluded by presenting the same stimuli away from the blind spot, suggesting that the rivalry process is not influenced by any filling-in that might occur. In Experiment 2, we presented the fellow eye's stimulus directly in rivalry with the 'inducer' stimulus that surrounds the blind spot, and compared it with two control conditions away from the blind spot: one involving a ring physically identical to the inducer, and one involving a disc that resembled the filled-in percept. Perceptual reports in the blind spot condition resembled those in the 'ring' condition, more than those in the latter, 'disc' condition, indicating that a perceptually suppressed inducer does not engender filling-in. Thus, our behavioral data suggest binocular rivalry functionally precedes blind spot filling-in. We conjecture that the neural substrate of binocular rivalry suppression includes processing stages at or before V1.

Filling-in rivalry: Perceptual alternations in the absence of retinal image conflict

During perceptual rivalry, an observer's perceptual experience alternates over time despite constant sensory stimulation. Perceptual alternations are thought to be driven by conflicting or ambiguous retinal image features at a particular spatial location and modulated by global context from surrounding locations. However, rivalry can also occur between two illusory stimuli-such as two filled-in stimuli within the retinal blind spot. In this "filling-in rivalry," what observers perceive in the blind spot changes in the absence of local stimulation. It remains unclear if filling-in rivalry shares common mechanisms with other types of rivalry. We measured the dynamics of rivalry between filled-in percepts in the blind spot, finding a high degree of exclusivity (perceptual dominance of one filled-in percept, rather than a perception of transparency), alternation rates that were highly consistent for individual observers, and dynamics that closely resembled other forms of perceptual rivalry. The results suggest that mechanisms common to a wide range of rivalry situations need not rely on conflicting retinal image signals.

Motion-Dependent Filling-In of Spatiotemporal Information at the Blind Spot

We usually do not notice the blind spot, a receptor-free region on the retina. Stimuli extending through the blind spot appear filled in. However, if an object does not reach through but ends in the blind spot, it is perceived as “cut off” at the boundary. Here we show that even when there is no corresponding stimulation at opposing edges of the blind spot, well known motion-induced position shifts also extend into the blind spot and elicit a dynamic filling-in process that allows spatial structure to be extrapolated into the blind spot. We presented observers with sinusoidal gratings that drifted into or out of the blind spot, or flickered in counterphase. Gratings moving into the blind spot were perceived to be longer than those moving out of the blind spot or flickering, revealing motion-dependent filling-in. Further, observers could perceive more of a grating’s spatial structure inside the blind spot than would be predicted from simple filling-in of luminance information from the blind spot edge. This is evidence for a dynamic filling-in process that uses spatiotemporal information from the motion system to extrapolate visual percepts into the scotoma of the blind spot. Our findings also provide further support for the notion that an explicit spatial shift of topographic representations contributes to motion-induced position illusions.