Paradoxical psychometric functions ("swan functions") are explained by dilution masking in four stimulus dimensions

Neural markers of suppression in impaired binocular vision

Even after conventional patching treatment, individuals with a history of amblyopia typically lack good stereo vision. This is often attributed to atypical suppression between the eyes, yet the specific mechanism is still unclear. Guided by computational models of binocular vision, we tested explicit predictions about how neural responses to contrast might differ in individuals with impaired binocular vision. Participants with a history of amblyopia (N = 25), and control participants with typical visual development (N = 19) took part in the study. Neural responses to different combinations of contrast in the left and right eyes, were measured using both electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Stimuli were sinusoidal gratings with a spatial frequency of 3c/deg, flickering at 4 Hz. In the fMRI experiment, we also ran population receptive field and retinotopic mapping sequences, and a phase-encoded localiser stimulus, to identify voxels in primary visual cortex (V1) sensitive to the main stimulus. Neural responses in both modalities increased monotonically with stimulus contrast. When measured with EEG, responses were attenuated in the weaker eye, consistent with a fixed tonic suppression of that eye. When measured with fMRI, a low contrast stimulus in the weaker eye substantially reduced the response to a high contrast stimulus in the stronger eye. This effect was stronger than when the stimulus-eye pairings were reversed, consistent with unbalanced dynamic suppression between the eyes. Measuring neural responses using different methods leads to different conclusions about visual differences in individuals with impaired binocular vision. Both of the atypical suppression effects may relate to binocular perceptual deficits, e.g. in stereopsis, and we anticipate that these measures could be informative for monitoring the progress of treatments aimed at recovering binocular vision.

Evidence for an Optimal Algorithm Underlying Signal Combination in Human Visual Cortex

How does the cortex combine information from multiple sources? We tested several computational models against data from steady-state electroencephalography (EEG) experiments in humans, using periodic visual stimuli combined across either retinal location or eye-of-presentation. A model in which signals are raised to an exponent before being summed in both the numerator and the denominator of a gain control nonlinearity gave the best account of the data. This model also predicted the pattern of responses in a range of additional conditions accurately and with no free parameters, as well as predicting responses at harmonic and intermodulation frequencies between 1 and 30 Hz. We speculate that this model implements the optimal algorithm for combining multiple noisy inputs, in which responses are proportional to the weighted sum of both inputs. This suggests a novel purpose for cortical gain control: implementing optimal signal combination via mutual inhibition, perhaps explaining its ubiquity as a neural computation.

Perception of global image contrast involves transparent spatial filtering and the integration and suppression of local contrasts (not RMS contrast)

When adjusting the contrast setting on a television set, we experience a perceptual change in the global image contrast. But how is that statistic computed? We addressed this using a contrast-matching task for checkerboard configurations of micro-patterns in which the contrasts and spatial spreads of two interdigitated components were controlled independently. When the patterns differed greatly in contrast, the higher contrast determined the perceived global contrast. Crucially, however, low contrast additions of one pattern to intermediate contrasts of the other caused a paradoxical reduction in the perceived global contrast. None of the following metrics/models predicted this: max, linear sum, average, energy, root mean squared (RMS), Legge and Foley. However, a nonlinear gain control model, derived from contrast detection and discrimination experiments, incorporating wide-field summation and suppression, did predict the results with no free parameters, but only when spatial filtering was removed. We conclude that our model describes fundamental processes in human contrast vision (the pattern of results was the same for expert and naive observers), but that above threshold-when contrast pedestals are clearly visible-vision's spatial filtering characteristics become transparent, tending towards those of a delta function prior to spatial summation. The global contrast statistic from our model is as easily derived as the RMS contrast of an image, and since it more closely relates to human perception, we suggest it be used as an image contrast metric in practical applications.

Unbiased Measures of Interocular Transfer of Motion Adaptation

Numerous studies have measured the extent to which motion aftereffects transfer interocularly. However, many have done so using bias-prone methods, and studies rarely compare different types of motion directly. Here, we use a technique designed to reduce bias (Morgan, 2013, Journal of Vision, 13(8):26, 1–11) to estimate interocular transfer (IOT) for five types of motion: simple translational motion, expansion/contraction, rotation, spiral, and complex translational motion. We used both static and dynamic targets with subjects making binary judgments of perceived speed. Overall, the average IOT was 65%, consistent with previous studies (mean over 17 studies of 67% transfer). There was a main effect of motion type, with translational motion producing stronger IOT (mean: 86%) overall than any of the more complex varieties of motion (mean: 51%). This is inconsistent with the notion that IOT should be strongest for motion processed in extrastriate regions that are fully binocular. We conclude that adaptation is a complex phenomenon too poorly understood to make firm inferences about the binocular structure of motion systems.

A common rule for integration and suppression of luminance contrast across eyes, space, time, and pattern

Visual perception begins by dissecting the retinal image into millions of small patches for local analyses by local receptive fields. However, image structures extend well beyond these receptive fields and so further processes must be involved in sewing the image fragments back together to derive representations of higher order (more global) structures. To investigate the integration process, we also need to understand the opposite process of suppression. To investigate both processes together, we measured triplets of dipper functions for targets and pedestals involving interdigitated stimulus pairs (A, B). Previous work has shown that summation and suppression operate over the full contrast range for the domains of ocularity and space. Here, we extend that work to include orientation and time domains. Temporal stimuli were 15-Hz counter-phase sine-wave gratings, where A and B were the positive and negative phases of the oscillation, respectively. For orientation, we used orthogonally oriented contrast patches (A, B) whose sum was an isotropic difference of Gaussians. Results from all four domains could be understood within a common framework in which summation operates separately within the numerator and denominator of a contrast gain control equation. This simple arrangement of summation and counter-suppression achieves integration of various stimulus attributes without distorting the underlying contrast code.