The separation of monocular and binocular contrast

Salience-Based Edge Selection in Flicker and Binocular Color Vision

A test cross that flickers between light yellow and dark blue at 5 to 8Hz looks apparently yellow on a dark gray surround and apparently blue on a light gray surround (flicker augmented contrast). The achromatic surround cannot be inducing the perceived colors. Instead, the visual system selects the more salient apparent color with the higher Michelson contrast. The same is true for dichoptic vision. When one eye views a steady, light yellow cross and the other eye views a congruent steady dark blue cross, the binocular combination of colors looks apparently yellow on a dark gray surround and apparently blue on a light gray surround. Thus, when competing stimuli are distributed over time (flicker) or space (dichoptic vision), the visual system overweights the stimulus with the higher contrast. To see objects clearly, we accept the best view of any object and downplay inferior alternatives.

Remote controls illusion: strange interactions across space cannot be explained by simple contrast filters

The visual system has separable visual encoding for luminance and for contrast modulation [J. Vis.8(1), B152 (2008)1534-736210.1167/8.6.1]; the two dimensions can be represented with a luminance contrast versus luminance plane. Here we use a contrast asynchrony paradigm to explore contextual effects on luminance contrast modulation: two identical rectangular bars (0.5°×2.5°) have luminance levels that modulate at 2 Hz; when one bar is placed on a bright field and the other bar on a dark field, observers perceive the bars modulating in antiphase with each other and yet becoming light and dark at the same time. The antiphase perception corresponds to the change in contrast between the bars and their surrounds (a change along the contrast axis of the plane); the in-phase perception corresponds to the luminance modulation (a change along the luminance axis of the plane). We examine spatial interaction by adding bright rectangular (0.5°×2.5°) flankers on both sides of the dark-field bar and dark flankers on both sides of the bright-field bar. Remarkably, flankers produce an in-phase appearance when separated from the bars by between 2^' and 4^' of visual angle, and produce antiphase appearance when they directly adjoin the bars or are separated by more than 8^'. To estimate the dimensions of the spatial interaction, we parametrically adjust the size of the gap between bars and flankers and the length of the flankers. We attempt to account for the results with models based on rectified difference of Gaussian filters and with rectified oriented difference of Gaussian filters. The models can account for the results when the flankers are the same height as bars, but are unable to account for the effects of increasing the flanker length. The models therefore suggest that the spatial interaction across distances requires more complex interactions of contrast filters.

Separating monocular and binocular neural mechanisms mediating chromatic contextual interactions

When seen in isolation, a light that varies in chromaticity over time is perceived to oscillate in color. Perception of that same time-varying light may be altered by a surrounding light that is also temporally varying in chromaticity. The neural mechanisms that mediate these contextual interactions are the focus of this article. Observers viewed a central test stimulus that varied in chromaticity over time within a larger surround that also varied in chromaticity at the same temporal frequency. Center and surround were presented either to the same eye (monocular condition) or to opposite eyes (dichoptic condition) at the same frequency (3.125, 6.25, or 9.375 Hz). Relative phase between center and surround modulation was varied. In both the monocular and dichoptic conditions, the perceived modulation depth of the central light depended on the relative phase of the surround. A simple model implementing a linear combination of center and surround modulation fit the measurements well. At the lowest temporal frequency (3.125 Hz), the surround's influence was virtually identical for monocular and dichoptic conditions, suggesting that at this frequency, the surround's influence is mediated primarily by a binocular neural mechanism. At higher frequencies, the surround's influence was greater for the monocular condition than for the dichoptic condition, and this difference increased with temporal frequency. Our findings show that two separate neural mechanisms mediate chromatic contextual interactions: one binocular and dominant at lower temporal frequencies and the other monocular and dominant at higher frequencies (6-10 Hz).

Contrast-contrast asynchronies

We introduce the "contrast-contrast asynchrony," a dynamic stimulus configuration that combines elements of the Shapiro contrast asynchrony with elements of the Chubb contrast-contrast illusion. In the contrast-contrast asynchrony, static textured fields surround two textured fields; one surround has high-contrast texture, and the other has low-contrast texture. The contrasts of the center fields modulate in phase with each other at 1 Hz, and as a consequence, the difference between the contrast of the centers and the contrast of the respective surround modulates in antiphase. Most observers report an antiphase appearance for high-contrast, fine-grained centers. These observers therefore respond to the difference between the center contrast and surround contrast. We also document three observers who do not see the asynchrony for high-contrast modulations of the center, suggesting possibly interesting individual differences.