Contrast and lustre: A model that accounts for eleven different forms of contrast discrimination in binocular vision

Surround masking reveals binocular adding and differencing channels

Recent studies suggest that binocular adding S+ and differencing S- channels play an important role in binocular vision. To test for such a role in the context of binocular contrast detection and binocular summation, we employed a surround masking paradigm consisting of a central target disk surrounded by a mask annulus. All stimuli were horizontally oriented 0.5c/d sinusoidal gratings. Correlated stimuli were identical in interocular spatial phase while anticorrelated stimuli were opposite in interocular spatial phase. There were four target conditions: monocular left eye, monocular right eye, binocular correlated and binocular anticorrelated, and three surround mask conditions: no surround, binocularly correlated and binocularly anticorrelated. We observed consistent elevation of detection thresholds for monocular and binocular targets across the two binocular surround mask conditions. In addition, we found an interaction between the type of surround and the type of binocular target: both detection and summation were relatively enhanced by surround masks and targets with opposite interocular phase relationships and reduced by surround masks and targets with the same interocular phase relationships. The data were reasonably well accounted for by a model of binocular combination termed MAX (S+S-), in which the decision variable is the probability summation of modeled S+ and S- channel responses, with a free parameter determining the relative gains of the two channels. Our results support the existence of two channels involved in binocular combination, S+ and S-, whose relative gains are adjustable by surround context.

In primary visual cortex fMRI responses to chromatic and achromatic stimuli are interdependent and predict contrast detection thresholds

Chromatic and achromatic signals in primary visual cortex have historically been considered independent of each other but have since shown evidence of interdependence. Here, we investigated the combination of two components of a stimulus; an achromatic dynamically changing check background and a chromatic (L-M or S cone) target grating. We found that combinations of chromatic and achromatic signals in primary visual cortex were interdependent, with the dynamic range of responses to chromatic contrast decreasing as achromatic contrast increased. A contrast detection threshold study also revealed interdependence of background and target, with increasing chromatic contrast detection thresholds as achromatic background contrast increased. A model that incorporated a normalising effect of achromatic contrast on chromatic responses, but not vice versa, best predicted our V1 data as well as behavioural thresholds. Further along the visual hierarchy, the dynamic range of chromatic responses was maintained when compared to achromatic responses, which became increasingly compressive.

Reduced Monocular Luminance Promotes Fusion But Not Mixed Perception in Amblyopia

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to understand how monocular luminance reduction affects binocular balance and examine whether it differentially influences fusion and mixed perception in amblyopia.

Methods

Twenty-three normally sighted observers and 12 adults with amblyopia participated in this study. A novel binocular rivalry task was used to measure the phase duration of four perceptual responses (right- and left-tilts, fusion, and mixed perception) before and after a neutral density (ND) filter was applied at various levels to the dominant eye (DE) of controls and the fellow eye (FE) of patients with amblyopia. Phase durations were analyzed to assess whether the duration of fusion or mixed perception shifted after monocular luminance reduction. Moreover, we quantified ocular dominance and adjusted monocular contrast and luminance separately to investigate the relationship between changes in ocular dominance induced by the two manipulations.

Results

In line with previous studies, binocular balance shifted in favor of the brighter eye in both normal adults and patients with amblyopia. As a function of the ND filter's density, the duration of fusion and mixed perception decreased in normal controls, whereas that of fusion but not mixed perception increased significantly in patients with amblyopia. In addition, changes in binocular balance from luminance reduction were more significant in more balanced amblyopes or normal observers. Furthermore, shifts in binocular balance after contrast and luminance modulation were correlated in both normal and amblyopic observers.

Conclusions

The duration of fusion but not mixed perception increased in amblyopia after monocular luminance reduction in the FE. Moreover, our findings demonstrate that changes in ocular dominance from contrast-modulation and luminance-modulation are correlated in both normal and amblyopic observers.

Peripheral vision is mainly for looking rather than seeing

Vision includes looking and seeing. Looking, mainly via gaze shifts, selects a fraction of visual input information for passage through the brain's information bottleneck. The selected input is placed within the attentional spotlight, typically in the central visual field. Seeing decodes, i.e., recognizes and discriminates, the selected inputs. Hence, peripheral vision should be mainly devoted to looking, in particular, deciding where to shift the gaze. Looking is often guided exogenously by a saliency map created by the primary visual cortex (V1), and can be effective with no seeing and limited awareness. In seeing, peripheral vision not only suffers from poor spatial resolution, but is also subject to crowding and is more vulnerable to illusions by misleading, ambiguous, and impoverished visual inputs. Central vision, mainly for seeing, enjoys the top-down feedback that aids seeing in light of the bottleneck which is hypothesized to starts from V1 to higher areas. This feedback queries for additional information from lower visual cortical areas such as V1 for ongoing recognition. Peripheral vision is deficient in this feedback according to the Central-peripheral Dichotomy (CPD) theory. The saccades engendered by peripheral vision allows looking to combine with seeing to give human observers the impression of seeing the whole scene clearly despite inattentional blindness.

Binocular luster elicited by isoluminant chromatic stimuli relies on mechanisms similar to those in the achromatic case

The phenomenon of binocular luster can be evoked by simple dichoptic center-surround stimuli showing a luminance contrast difference between the eyes. Previous findings support the idea that this phenomenon is mediated by a low-level conflict mechanism that integrates the monocular signals from different types of contrast detector cells. Also, isoluminant stimuli with different chromatic contrasts between eyes can trigger sensations of luster. Here, we investigate whether the lustrous impression in such purely chromatic stimuli depends on interocular contrast differences and in particular on interocular contrast polarity pairings in a similar way as in the achromatic case. In our experiments, we measured the magnitude of the lustrous response using a series of isoluminant dichoptic center-ring-surround stimuli with varying ring width whose chromatic properties were varied along the red-green and blue-yellow cardinal directions. The trends in the data were very similar to those of our former study with achromatic stimuli, indicating similar mechanisms in both cases. The empirical luster data could also be predicted fairly well by a chromatic version of our interocular conflict model (with overall R2 values between 0.577 and 0.639), for which two different receptive field models were used, simulating the behavior of color-sensitive double-opponent cells in V1.

Binocular properties of contrast adaptation in human vision

Adaptation to contrast has been known and studied for 50 years, and the functional importance of dynamic gain control mechanisms is widely recognized. Understanding of binocular combination and binocular fusion has also advanced in the last 20 years, but aside from interocular transfer (IOT), we still know little about binocular properties of contrast adaptation. Our observers adapted to a high contrast 3.6 c/deg grating, and we assessed contrast detection and discrimination across a wide range of test contrasts (plotted as threshold vs contrast [TvC] functions). For each combination of adapt/test eye(s), the adapted TvC data followed a 'dipper' curve similar to the unadapted data, but displaced obliquely to higher contrasts. Adaptation had effectively re-scaled all contrasts by a common factor Cs that varied with the combination of adapt and test eye(s). Cs was well described by a simple 2-parameter model that had separate monocular and binocular gain controls, sited before and after binocular summation respectively. When these two levels of adaptation were inserted into an existing model for contrast discrimination, the extended 2-stage model gave a good account of the TvC functions, their shape invariance with adaptation, and the contrast scaling factors. The underlying contrast-response function is of almost constant shape, and adaptation shifts it to higher contrasts by the factor log10(Cs) - a 'pure contrast gain control'. Evidence of partial IOT in cat V1 cells supports the 2-stage scheme, but is not consistent with a classic (single-stage) model.

Detection of vertical interocular phase disparities using luster as cue

Interocular disparities in contrast generate an impression of binocular luster, providing a cue for their detection. Disparities in the carrier spatial phase of horizontally oriented Gabor patches also generate an impression of luster, so the question arises as to whether it is the disparities in local contrast that accompany the phase disparities that give rise to the luster. We examined this idea by comparing the detection of interocular spatial phase disparities with that of interocular contrast disparities in Gabor patches, in the latter case that differed in overall contrast rather than phase between the eyes. When bandwidth was held constant and Gabor spatial frequency was varied, the detection of phase and contrast disparities followed a similar pattern. However, when spatial frequency was fixed and Gabor envelope standard deviation (and hence number of modulation cycles) was varied, thresholds for detecting phase disparities followed a U-shaped function of Gabor standard deviation, whereas thresholds for contrast disparities, following an initial decline, were more-or-less constant as a function of Gabor standard deviation. After reviewing a number of possible explanations for the U-shape found with phase disparities, we suggest that the likely cause is binocular sensory fusion, the strength of which increases with the number of modulation cycles. Binocular sensory fusion would operate to reduce phase but not contrast disparities, thus selectively elevating phase disparity thresholds.

A simple model of binocular luster

The dichoptic combination of simple center–surround stimuli showing a contrast difference between eyes can trigger a lustrous impression in the fused percept, particularly when the contrast polarities in the two input images are of opposite sign. Recent developments suggest that the phenomenon of binocular luster results from a neural conflict between ON and OFF visual pathways at an early binocular level. Support for this idea was found in a previous study in which the empirical luster judgments strongly correlated with the predictions of an interocular conflict model which was based on such ON–OFF pairings. However, our original model could not account for the fact that weaker lustrous sensations can also be evoked by stimuli showing contrast polarities of same sign between eyes. In the present study we present an improved model that also includes ON–ON and OFF–OFF pairings. The predictive power of this model was tested in a series of four experiments, using a total of about 500 different center–ring–surround configurations as test stimuli. We found that, overall, our modified version accounts for more than 80% of the variance in the empirical luster judgments and that the former problems could be largely resolved. Our results further suggest a nonlinear transducer function for the binocular conflict signals.

The Mechanism of Short-Term Monocular Pattern Deprivation-Induced Perceptual Eye Dominance Plasticity

Previously published studies have reported that 150 min of short-term monocular deprivation temporarily changes perceptual eye dominance. However, the possible mechanisms underlying monocular deprivation-induced perceptual eye dominance plasticity remain unclear. Using a binocular phase and contrast co-measurement task and a multi-pathway contrast-gain control model (MCM), we studied the effect of 150 min of monocular pattern deprivation (MPD) in normal adult subjects. The perceived phase and contrast varied significantly with the interocular contrast ratio, and after MPD, the patched eye (PE) became dominant. Most importantly, we focused on the potential mechanisms of the deprivation effect. The data of an averaged subject was best fitted by a model, which assumed a monocular signal enhancement of the PE after the MPD. The present findings might have important implications for investigations of binocular vision in both normal and amblyopic populations.

Binocular luster - A review

Binocular luster is a visual phenomenon that can be elicited by dichoptic stimuli showing an interocular difference in color or luminance contrast. For instance, when the two eyes are presented with simple center-surround stimuli in which the center patch in one eye is brighter and in the other eye darker than the common surround, the center patch in the fused percept assumes a lustrous appearance reminiscent of metal or graphite. Soon after the discovery of this phenomenon in the mid-19th century, it was intensively studied and several explanations were proposed. After this initial phase, however, research interest waned significantly. Stimulated by new insights into related phenomena and the underlying physiological mechanisms, the last 20 years have seen an increase in research activity in this field, which has considerably expanded our understanding of binocular luster. In this paper, we provide a detailed review of research on binocular luster over the past 170 years. We present and discuss the existing findings in a number of separate sections, dealing with 1) the phenomenology of binocular luster, 2) different theories that have been proposed, 3) several factors influencing the lustrous impression, 4) the relationship between binocular luster and binocular rivalry, 5) the current understanding of its neural basis, and 6) potential applications based on binocular luster.

Binocular fusion enhances the efficiency of spot-the-difference gameplay

Spot-the-difference, the popular childhood game and a prototypical change blindness task, involves identification of differences in local features of two otherwise identical scenes using an eye scanning and matching strategy. Through binocular fusion of the companion scenes, the game becomes a visual search task, wherein players can simply scan the cyclopean percept for local features that may distinctly stand-out due to binocular rivalry/lustre. Here, we had a total of 100 visually normal adult (18-28 years of age) volunteers play this game in the traditional non-fusion mode and after cross-fusion of the companion images using a hand-held mirror stereoscope. The results demonstrate that the fusion mode significantly speeds up gameplay and reduces errors, relative to the non-fusion mode, for a range of target sizes, contrasts, and chromaticity tested (all, p<0.001). Amongst the three types of local feature differences available in these images (polarity difference, presence/absence of a local feature difference and shape difference in a local feature difference), features containing polarity difference was identified as first in ~60-70% of instances in both modes of gameplay (p<0.01), with this proportion being larger in the fusion than in the non-fusion mode. The binocular fusion advantage is lost when the lustre cue is purposefully weakened through alterations in target luminance polarity. The spot-the-difference game may thus be cheated using binocular fusion and the differences readily identified through a vivid experience of binocular rivalry/lustre.

Shifting eye balance using monocularly directed attention in normal vision

In binocular vision, even without conscious awareness of eye of origin, attention can be selectively biased toward one eye by presenting a visual stimulus uniquely to that eye. Monocularly directed visual cues can bias perceptual dominance, as shown by studies using discrete measures of percept changes in continuous-flash suppression. Here, we use binocular rivalry to determine whether eye-based visual cues can modulate eye balance using continuous percept reporting. Using a dual-task versus single-task paradigm, we investigated whether the attentional load of these cues differentially modulates eye balance. Furthermore, both color-based and motion-based cue stimuli, non-overlaid and peripheral to the rivalry grating stimuli, were used to determine whether shifts in eye balance were stimulus specific. Aligned to cue stimulus onset, time series of percept reports were constructed and averaged across trials and participants. Specifically, for the monocular attention conditions, we found a significant shift in eye balance toward the cued eye and a significant difference in the time taken to switch from the dominating percept, regardless of whether the attention stimuli is color based or motion based. Although we did not find a significant main effect of attentional load, we found a significant interaction effect between the attentionally cued eye and attentional load on the shift in eye balance, indicating an influence of monocular attention on the shift in eye balance.

A unified model for binocular fusion and depth perception

We describe a new unified model to explain both binocular fusion and depth perception, over a broad range of depths. At each location, the model consists of an array of paired spatial frequency filters, with different relative horizontal shifts (position disparity) and interocular phase disparities of 0, 90, ±180, or -90°. The paired filters with different spatial profiles (non-zero phase disparity) compute interocular misalignment and provide phase-disparity energy (binocular fusion energy) to drive selection of the appropriate filters along the position disparity space until the misalignment is eliminated and sensory fusion is achieved locally. The paired filters with identical spatial profiles (0 phase disparity) compute the position-disparity energy. After sensory fusion, the combination of position and possible residual phase disparity energies is calculated for binocular depth perception. Binocular fusion occurs at multiple scales following a coarse-to-fine process. At a given location, the apparent depth is the weighted sum of fusion shifts combined with residual phase disparity in all spatial-frequency channels, and the weights depend on stimulus spatial frequency and stimulus contrast. To test the theory, we measured disparity minimum and maximum thresholds (Dmin and Dmax) at three spatial frequencies and with different intraocular contrast levels. The stimuli were Random-Gabor-Patch (RGP) stereograms consisting of Gabor patches with random positions and phases, but with a fixed spatial frequency. The two eyes viewed identical arrays of patches except that one eye's array could be shifted horizontally and could differ in contrast. Our experiments and modeling reveal two contrast normalization mechanisms: (1) Energy Normalization (EN): Binocular energy is normalized with monocular energy after the site of binocular combination. This predicts constant Dmin thresholds when varying stimulus contrast in the two eyes; (2) DSKL model Interocular interactions: Monocular contrasts are normalized before the binocular combination site through interocular contrast gain-control and gain-enhancement mechanisms. This predicts contrast dependent Dmax thresholds. We tested a range of models and found that a model consisting of a second-order pathway with DSKL interocular interactions and a first-order pathway with EN at each spatial-frequency band can account for both the Dmin and Dmax data very well. Simulations show that the model makes reasonable predictions of suprathreshold depth perception.

Binocular summation and efficient coding

Two eyes are better than one at detecting a pattern, an advantage termed binocular summation. It is widely believed that binocular summation is mediated by neurons that sum the two eyes' inputs. Here we suggest an alternative model based on a model of binocular interactions proposed by Cohn, Leong & Lasley (Vision Research, 1981, 21, 1017-1023) and further motivated by the efficient coding framework proposed by Li & Atick (Network: Computation in Neural Systems, 1994, 5, 157-174). In the model, termed MAX(S+S-), binocular summation is mediated by channels that compute the sum, S+, and difference, S-, of the two eyes' monocular signals. The S+ and S- signals are assumed to be perturbed by independent noise, have independent gains and contribute independently to detection via the MAX rule. To test the model we measured binocular summation for horizontally-oriented Gabor patches at a range of spatial-frequencies and bandwidths, at both contrast detection threshold and for increment thresholds on binocular pedestals at contrasts set to 10x detection threshold. The model's performance was compared to that of two conventional models of binocular summation, one in which the two eyes' signals remain separate at the decision stage, termed MAX(LR), the other in which the two eye's signals are summed by a single channel, termed B+, with both models incorporating interocular inhibition. The MAX(S+S-) model gave as good a performance as the other two models. Together with the evidence for the involvement of separately gain controlled S+ and S- signals underpinning a wide range of binocular behaviors, we conclude that the MAX(S+S-) model can and should be considered as a viable model for binocular summation.

The role of contrast polarities in binocular luster: Low-level and high-level processes

The binocular fusion of two center-surround configurations, where one center is brighter, the other darker than the common surround, leads to a strong impression of luster in the central patch. Without reversed contrast polarities of the center patches, this impression is much weaker or even absent. However, we observed that in the latter case the perceived luster can be considerably enhanced by enclosing both centers with a thin ring of fixed luminance. Compared to the standard stimulus, this center-ring-surround configuration shows much less binocular rivalry and the luster has also a different, more glass-like material quality. In a psychophysical experiment, we examined how the magnitude of the lustrous response depends on the width of the ring, both in stimuli with reversed and consistent contrast polarities. It has been proposed that binocular luster results from a neuronal conflict between ON and OFF visual pathways. To test this hypothesis with respect to our data, we developed a simple model to estimate the amount of interocular conflict resulting from a given binocular stimulus pair and applied it to all stimuli used in the experiment. We found strong correlations between the interocular conflict measure and the strength of luster observed in the experiment, suggesting that a common low-level mechanism determines the magnitude of the lustrous response. Regarding the differences in the perceived material quality of the lustrous impressions, we discuss evidence indicating that high-level processes are involved that promote the visual system's interpretation of the ring-stimuli as a certain depth-segmented 3D scene.

Evidence in Support of the Border-Ownership Neurons for Representing Textured Figures

We presented one eye with a monocular-boundary-contour (MBC) square, created by phase-shifting a central region of grating relative to a larger uniform grating surround, and the fellow eye with the larger uniform grating. In addition, the grating within the MBC region was rendered with lower contrast relative to the remaining stimulus. Despite this, we found the lower contrast MBC region dominated the perceived cyclopean contrast, with the corresponding region in the fellow eye being suppressed. Secondly, we found for dichoptic stimuli with half-images having square grating regions of different BC strengths, the interocular BC strength ratio determined the perceived contrast of the cyclopean square. Thirdly, we found perceived spatial phase of the cyclopean square was dominated by the spatial phase of the MBC half-image. Altogether, these psychophysical findings provided evidence for a border-to-interior representation strategy, that constructing surface begins at the boundary contour (BC), in binocular contrast and phase integration.

Interocular difference thresholds are mediated by binocular differencing, not summing, channels

Patterns in the two eyes' views that are not identical in hue or contrast often elicit an impression of luster, providing a cue for discriminating them from perfectly matched patterns. Here we attempt to determine the mechanisms for detecting interocular differences in luminance contrast, in particular in relation to the possible contributions of binocular differencing and binocular summing channels. Test patterns were horizontally oriented multi-spatial-frequency luminance-grating patterns subject to variable amounts of interocular difference in grating phase, resulting in varying degrees of local interocular contrast difference. Two types of experiment were conducted. In the first, subjects discriminated between a pedestal with an interocular difference that ranged upward from zero (i.e., binocularly correlated) and a test pattern that contained a bigger interocular difference. In the second type of experiment, subjects discriminated between a pedestal with an interocular difference that ranged downward from a maximum (i.e., binocularly anticorrelated) and a test pattern that contained smaller interocular difference. The two types of task could be mediated by a binocular differencing and a binocular summing channel, respectively. However, we found that the results from both experiments were well described by a simpler model in which a single, linear binocular differencing channel is followed by a standard nonlinear transducer that is expansive for small signals but strongly compressive for large ones. Possible reasons for the lack of involvement of a binocular summing channel are discussed in the context of a model that incorporates the responses of both monocular and binocular channels.

Binocular global motion perception is improved by dichoptic segregation when stimuli have high contrast and high speed

The brain combines information from the two eyes during vision. This combination is obligatory to a remarkable extent: In random-dot kinematograms (RDKs), randomly moving noise dots were similarly effective at preventing observers from seeing the motion of coherently moving signals dots, independent of whether the signal and noise were presented to the same eye or segregated to different eyes. However, motion detectors have varied binocularity: Neurons in visual brain area V1 that encode high contrast, high speed stimuli may be less completely binocular than neurons that encode low contrast, low speed stimuli. Also, neurons in MT often have unbalanced inputs from the two eyes. We predicted that for high contrast, high speed stimuli only, there would be a benefit to segregating the signal and noise of the RDK into different eyes. We found this benefit, both when performance was measured by percent coherence thresholds and when it was measured by luminance contrast ratio (signal-dot-contrast to noise-dot-contrast) thresholds. Thus, for high contrast, high speed stimuli, binocular fusion of local motion is not complete before the extraction of global motion. We also replicated a cross-over interaction: At high speed, global motion extraction was generally more efficient when dot contrast was high, but at low speed it was more efficient when dot contrast was low. We provide a schematic model of binocular global motion perception, to show how the contrast-speed interaction can be predicted from neurophysiology and why it should be exaggerated for segregated viewing. Our data bore out these predictions. We conclude that different neural populations limit performance during binocular global motion perception, depending on stimulus contrast and speed.

Binaural summation of amplitude modulation involves weak interaural suppression

The brain combines sounds from the two ears, but what is the algorithm used to achieve this summation of signals? Here we combine psychophysical amplitude modulation discrimination and steady-state electroencephalography (EEG) data to investigate the architecture of binaural combination for amplitude-modulated tones. Discrimination thresholds followed a ‘dipper’ shaped function of pedestal modulation depth, and were consistently lower for binaural than monaural presentation of modulated tones. The EEG responses were greater for binaural than monaural presentation of modulated tones, and when a masker was presented to one ear, it produced only weak suppression of the response to a signal presented to the other ear. Both data sets were well-fit by a computational model originally derived for visual signal combination, but with suppression between the two channels (ears) being much weaker than in binocular vision. We suggest that the distinct ecological constraints on vision and hearing can explain this difference, if it is assumed that the brain avoids over-representing sensory signals originating from a single object. These findings position our understanding of binaural summation in a broader context of work on sensory signal combination in the brain, and delineate the similarities and differences between vision and hearing.

At least two distinct mechanisms control binocular luster, rivalry, and perceived rotation with contrast and average luminance disparities

When one views a square-wave grating and dichoptically changes the average luminance or contrast of the monocular images, at least three perceptual phenomena might occur. These are the Venetian blind effect, or a perceived rotation of the bars around individual vertical axes; binocular luster, or a perceived shimmering; and binocular rivalry, or an alternating perception between the views of the two eyes. Perception of luster and rivalry occur when the "light bars" in the grating dichoptically straddle the background luminance (one eye's image has a higher luminance than the background and the other eye's image has a lower luminance than the background), with little impact from the "dark bars." Perception of rotation, on the other hand, is related to average luminance or contrast disparity, independent of whether or not the "light bars" straddle the background luminance. The patterns for perceived rotation versus binocular luster and binocular rivalry suggest at least two separate mechanisms in the visual system for processing luminance and contrast information over and above their differing physiological states suggested by their different appearances. While luster and rivalry depend directly on the relation between stimuli and the background, perceived rotation depends on the magnitude of the luminance or contrast disparity, as described by the generalized difference model.

Spatial summation of broadband contrast

Spatial summation of luminance contrast signals has historically been psychophysically measured with stimuli isolated in spatial frequency (i.e., narrowband). Here, we revisit the study of spatial summation with noise patterns that contain the naturalistic 1/fα distribution of contrast across spatial frequency. We measured amplitude spectrum slope (α) discrimination thresholds and verified if sensitivity to α improved according to stimulus size. Discrimination thresholds did decrease with an increase in stimulus size. These data were modeled with a summation model originally designed for narrowband stimuli (i.e., single detecting channel; Baker & Meese, 2011; Meese & Baker, 2011) that we modified to include summation across multiple-differently tuned-spatial frequency channels. To fit our data, contrast gain control weights had to be inversely related to spatial frequency (1/f); thus low spatial frequencies received significantly more divisive inhibition than higher spatial frequencies, which is a similar finding to previous models of broadband contrast perception (Haun & Essock, 2010; Haun & Peli, 2013). We found summation across spatial frequency channels to occur prior to summation across space, channel summation was near linear and summation across space was nonlinear. Our analysis demonstrates that classical psychophysical models can be adapted to computationally define visual mechanisms under broadband visual input, with the adapted models offering novel insight on the integration of signals across channels and space.

Differences in Stereoscopic Luster Evoked by Static and Dynamic Stimuli

We compared the classic static stereoscopic luster phenomenon with a recently described dynamic variant ("counter modulation") to investigate whether they are related to the same or different processes. In the experiments, we presented pairs of center-surround stimuli haploscopically and measured the effect of the contrast between center colors on perceived luster. The center colors were either static or temporally modulated. In addition, we examined five color conditions (one achromatic, two equiluminant, and two mixed conditions) and three background conditions that influence the channel-wise polarities of the contrast of the two centers to the common surround. The results for static and dynamic stimuli differed in several ways, suggesting that they depend on different mechanisms: Compared with the static version, in dynamic stimuli, luster was perceived at markedly lower contrasts, did not depend on the sign of the contrast polarities, and appeared more steady. However, both phenomena seem also similar in some respects: In both cases, equiluminant stimuli led to lustrous impressions that were considerably less strong than those evoked by stimuli containing luminance variation, and the strength of the perceived luster was generally boosted with reversed contrast polarities.

Binocular summation revisited: Beyond √2

Our ability to detect faint images is better with two eyes than with one, but how great is this improvement? A meta-analysis of 65 studies published across more than 5 decades shows definitively that psychophysical binocular summation (the ratio of binocular to monocular contrast sensitivity) is significantly greater than the canonical value of √2. Several methodological factors were also found to affect summation estimates. Binocular summation was significantly affected by both the spatial and temporal frequency of the stimulus, and stimulus speed (the ratio of temporal to spatial frequency) systematically predicts summation levels, with slow speeds (high spatial and low temporal frequencies) producing the strongest summation. We furthermore show that empirical summation estimates are affected by the ratio of monocular sensitivities, which varies across individuals, and is abnormal in visual disorders such as amblyopia. A simple modeling framework is presented to interpret the results of summation experiments. In combination with the empirical results, this model suggests that there is no single value for binocular summation, but instead that summation ratios depend on methodological factors that influence the strength of a nonlinearity occurring early in the visual pathway, before binocular combination of signals. Best practice methodological guidelines are proposed for obtaining accurate estimates of neural summation in future studies, including those involving patient groups with impaired binocular vision. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Adaptation to interocular difference

Patterns in the two eyes' views that are not identical in hue or contrast often elicit an impression of luster, providing a cue for discriminating them from perfectly matched patterns. Here we ask whether the mechanism for detecting interocular differences (IDs) is adaptable. Our stimuli were horizontally oriented multispatial-frequency grating patterns that could be subject to varying degrees of ID through the introduction of interocular phase differences in the grating components. Subjects adapted to patterns that were either correlated, uncorrelated, monocular (one eye only), or anticorrelated. Following adaptation, thresholds for detecting IDs were measured using a staircase procedure. It was found that ID thresholds were elevated following adaptation to uncorrelated, monocular, and anticorrelated but not correlated patterns. Threshold elevation was found to be maximal when the orientations of the adaptor and test gratings were the same, and when their spatial frequencies were similar. The results support the existence of a specialized mechanism for detecting IDs, the most likely candidate being the binocular differencing channel proposed in previous studies.

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.

Ocularity Feature Contrast Attracts Attention Exogenously

An eye-of-origin singleton, e.g., a bar shown to the left eye among many other bars shown to the right eye, can capture attention and gaze exogenously or reflexively, even when it appears identical to other visual input items in the scene and when the eye-of-origin feature is irrelevant to the observer's task. Defining saliency as the strength of exogenous attraction to attention, we say that this eye-of-origin singleton, or its visual location, is salient. Defining the ocularity of a visual input item as the relative difference between its left-eye input and its right-eye input, this paper shows the general case that an ocularity singleton is also salient. For example, a binocular input item among monocular input items is salient, so is a left-eye-dominant input item (e.g., a bar with a higher input contrast to the left eye than to the right eye) among right-eye-dominant items. Saliency by unique input ocularity is analogous to saliency by unique input colour (e.g., a red item among green ones), as colour is determined by the relative difference(s) between visual inputs to different photoreceptor cones. Just as a smaller colour difference between a colour singleton and background items makes this singleton less salient, so does a smaller ocularity difference between an ocularity singleton and background items. While a salient colour difference is highly visible, a salient ocularity difference is often perceptually invisible in some cases and discouraging gaze shifts towards it in other cases, making its behavioural manifestation not as apparent. Saliency by ocularity contrast provides another support to the idea that the primary visual cortex creates a bottom-up saliency map to guide attention exogenously.

Binocular combination of luminance profiles

We develop and test a new two-dimensional model for binocular combination of the two eyes' luminance profiles. For first-order stimuli, the model assumes that one eye's luminance profile first goes through a luminance compressor, receives gain-control and gain-enhancement from the other eye, and then linearly combines the other eye's output profile. For second-order stimuli, rectification is added in the signal path of the model before the binocular combination site. Both the total contrast and luminance energies, weighted sums over both the space and spatial-frequency domains, were used in the interocular gain-control, while only the total contrast energy was used in the interocular gain-enhancement. To challenge the model, we performed a binocular brightness matching experiment over a large range of background and target luminances. The target stimulus was a dichoptic disc with a sharp edge that has an increment or decrement luminance from its background. The disk's interocular luminance ratio varied from trial to trial. To refine the model we tested three luminance compressors, five nested binocular combination models (including the Ding–Sperling and the DSKL models), and examined the presence or absence of total luminance energy in the model. We found that (1) installing a luminance compressor, either a logarithmic luminance function or luminance gain-control, (2) including both contrast and luminance energies, and (3) adding interocular gain-enhancement (the DSKL model) to a combined model significantly improved its performance. The combined model provides a systematic account of binocular luminance summation over a large range of luminance input levels. It gives a unified explanation of Fechner's paradox observed on a dark background, and a winner-take-all phenomenon observed on a light background. To further test the model, we conducted two additional experiments: luminance summation of discs with asymmetric contour information (Experiment 2), similar to Levelt (1965) and binocular combination of second-order contrast-modulated gratings (Experiment 3). We used the model obtained in Experiment 1 to predict the results of Experiments 2 and 3 and the results of our previous studies. Model simulations further refined the contrast space weight and contrast sensitivity functions that are installed in the model, and provide a reasonable account for rebalancing of imbalanced binocular vision by reducing the mean luminance in the dominant eye.

Decoding eye-of-origin outside of awareness

In the primary visual cortex of many mammals, ocular dominance columns segregate information from the two eyes. Yet under controlled conditions, most human observers are unable to correctly report the eye to which a stimulus has been shown, indicating that this information is lost during subsequent processing. This study investigates whether eye-of-origin information is available in the pattern of electrophysiological activity evoked by visual stimuli, recorded using EEG and decoded using multivariate pattern analysis. Observers (N=24) viewed sine-wave grating and plaid stimuli of different orientations, shown to either the left or right eye (or both). Using a support vector machine, eye-of-origin could be decoded above chance at around 140 and 220ms post stimulus onset, yet observers were at chance for reporting this information. Other stimulus features, such as binocularity, orientation, spatial pattern, and the presence of interocular conflict (i.e. rivalry), could also be decoded using the same techniques, though all of these were perceptually discriminable above chance. A control analysis found no evidence to support the possibility that eye dominance was responsible for the eye-of-origin effects. These results support a structural explanation for multivariate decoding of electrophysiological signals - information organised in cortical columns can be decoded, even when observers are unaware of this information.

Binocular functional architecture for detection of contrast-modulated gratings

Combination of signals from the two eyes is the gateway to stereo vision. To gain insight into binocular signal processing, we studied binocular summation for luminance-modulated gratings (L or LM) and contrast-modulated gratings (CM). We measured 2AFC detection thresholds for a signal grating (0.75c/deg, 216ms) shown to one eye, both eyes, or both eyes out-of-phase. For LM and CM, the carrier noise was in both eyes, even when the signal was monocular. Mean binocular thresholds for luminance gratings (L) were 5.4dB better than monocular thresholds - close to perfect linear summation (6dB). For LM and CM the binocular advantage was again 5-6dB, even when the carrier noise was uncorrelated, anti-correlated, or at orthogonal orientations in the two eyes. Binocular combination for CM probably arises from summation of envelope responses, and not from summation of these conflicting carrier patterns. Antiphase signals produced no binocular advantage, but thresholds were about 1-3dB higher than monocular ones. This is not consistent with simple linear summation, which should give complete cancellation and unmeasurably high thresholds. We propose a three-channel model in which noisy monocular responses to the envelope are binocularly combined in a contrast-weighted sum, but also remain separately available to perception via a max operator. Vision selects the largest of the three responses. With in-phase gratings the binocular channel dominates, but antiphase gratings cancel in the binocular channel and the monocular channels mediate detection. The small antiphase disadvantage might be explained by a subtle influence of background responses on binocular and monocular detection.