The contribution of forward masking to saccadic inhibition of return

Inhibition of return is the name typically given to the prolonged latency of motor responses directed to a previously cued target location. There is intense debate about the origins of this effect and its function, but most take for granted (despite lack of evidence) that it depends little on forward masking. Therefore, we re-examined the role of forward masking in inhibition of return. Forward masking was indexed by slower saccadic reaction times (SRTs) when the target orientation repeated the cue orientation at the same location. We confirmed effects of orientation repetition in the absence of an attentional bias when cues were presented on both sides of fixation (bilateral presentation). The effect of orientation repetition was reduced with high target contrast, consistent with a low-level origin such as contrast gain control in early visual areas. When presenting cues on only one side of fixation (unilateral presentation), we obtained inhibition of return with longer cue-target intervals and facilitation with targets presented shortly after the cue. The effect of orientation repetition was reduced when facilitation was observed, but was as strong as with bilateral cues when inhibition of return was observed. Therefore, forward masking may contribute to the inhibition of return effect by delaying reaction times to repeated features at the same location, but is not a principal cause of inhibition of return; in agreement with previous views.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

The saccadic inhibition of return effect is a reaction-time cost when responding to a pre-cued location. Additional object updating costs are typically invoked to explain reaction-time costs observed when cue and target have the same shape. Yet, lower-level, forward masking of the target by the cue can not be ruled out. Importantly, we show an effect of orientation repetition that is consistent with low-level forward masking rather than object updating costs and that does not interact with inhibition of return.

Contrast adaptation and interocular transfer in cortical cells: A re-analysis & a two-stage gain-control model of binocular combination

How do V1 cells respond to, adapt to, and combine signals from the two eyes? We tested a simple functional model that has monocular and binocular stages of divisive contrast gain control (CGC) that sit before, and after, binocular summation respectively. Interocular suppression (IOS) was another potential influence on contrast gain. Howarth, Vorobyov & Sengpiel (2009, Cerebral Cortex, 19, 1835-1843) studied contrast adaptation and interocular transfer in cat V1 cells. In our re-analysis we found that ocular dominance (OD) and contrast adaptation at a fixed test contrast were well described by a re-scaling of the unadapted orientation tuning curve - a simple change in response gain. We compared six variants of the basic model, and one model fitted the gain data notably better than the others did. When the dominant eye was tested, adaptation reduced cell response gain more when that eye was adapted than when the other eye was adapted. But when the non-dominant eye was tested, adapting either eye gave about the same reduction in overall gain, and there was an interaction between OD and adapting eye that was well described by the best-fitting model. Two key features of this model are that signals driving IOS arise 'early', before attenuation due to OD, while suppressive CGC signals are 'late' and so affected by OD. We show that late CGC confers a functional advantage: it yields partial compensation for OD, which should reduce ocular imbalance at the input to binocular summation, and improve the cell's sensitivity to variation in stereo disparity.

Myopes experience greater contrast adaptation during reading

In this study, we investigated whether reading influences contrast adaptation differently in young adult emmetropic and myopic participants at the spatial frequencies created by text rows and character strokes. Pre-adaptation contrast sensitivity was measured for test gratings with spatial frequencies of 1cdeg(-1) and 4cdeg(-1), presented horizontally and vertically. Participants then adapted to reading text corresponding to the horizontal "row frequency" of text (1cdeg(-1)), and vertical "stroke frequency" of the characters (4cdeg(-1)) for 180s. Following this, post-adaptation contrast sensitivity was measured. Twenty young adults (10 myopes, 10 emmetropes) optimally corrected for the viewing distance participated. There was a significant reduction in logCS post-text adaptation (relative to pre-adaptation logCS) at the row frequency (1cdeg(-1) horizontal) but not at the stroke frequency (4cdeg(-1) vertical). logCS changes due to adaptation at 1cdeg(-1) horizontal were significant in both emmetropes and myopes. Comparing the two refractive groups, myopic participants showed significantly greater adaptation compared to emmetropic participants. Reading text on a screen induces contrast adaptation in young adult observers. Myopic participants were found to exhibit greater contrast adaptation than emmetropes at the spatial frequency corresponding to the text row frequency. No contrast adaptation was observed at the text stroke frequency in either participant group. The greater contrast adaptation experienced by myopes after reading warrants further investigation to better understand the relationship between near work and myopia development.

Evidence for a central component in adaptation to chromatic light

Adaptation to environmental light allows our visual system to compensate for dynamic changes in the visual environment for avoiding everyday hazards (e.g., misreading traffic lights) and for accurate reaching. We investigated the hypothesis that adaptation to coloured light is achieved not only via photoreceptors in the retina and monocular contrast adaptation, but also by a binocular process that may occur at the level of the cerebral cortex. In the present study, to determine the role of higher-order cortical binocular processes in adaptation to coloured light, participants were adapted to chromatic light such that the duration of adaptation during monocular processing differed from that during binocular processing. A dichoptic device was used to adapt each eye independently. The extent of after-effects, measured as the distance between the neutral points before and after adaptation to coloured light, depended on the duration of adaptation not only at the monocular level but also at a higher cortical level downstream from binocular fusion. Thus, contrast adaptation to coloured light occurs on at least two levels; it is a result of monocular processes at one level and binocular processes at the other, and each type of process exhibits different temporal characteristics. The results of this study suggest a significant cortical role in adaptation to changes in lighting conditions or the optical environment, including the effects of age on the eye, and the necessity of further investigation to clarify the functional connection between chromatic adaptation by photoreceptors and chromatic adaptation by cortical systems.

Accommodation responses following contrast adaptation

The current study explored the effects of contrast adaptation on the accommodation response (AR), using low- and high-pass filtered video clips as stimuli. Ten young myopic (mean ± standard deviation: -2.91 ± 1.36D) and 10 near emmetropic subjects (-0.19 ± 0.14D) participated in the study. The AR was monitored under monocular viewing conditions using an eccentric infrared photorefractor. A 2-stage procedure was used: (1) the minimum spatial frequency content necessary to produce a proper individual AR; and (2) the AR was compared before and after adaptation to low-pass (s = -0.5), control (s = 0) and high-pass (s = +0.5) filtered videos. We found that (1) the average threshold Sinc-blur of both myopes and emmetropes necessary to evoke accommodation was (mean ± standard deviation) λ = 7.40 ± 4.05 cpd. Myopes required a higher Sinc blur (average, 10.00 ± 4.05 cpd) compared to emmetropes (average, 4.80 ± 1.60 cpd). (2) Adaptation to low-pass filtered videos increased the AR by 0.41 ± 0.33D in the myopic group and reduced it in the emmetropic group by 0.31 ± 0.25D. Adaptation to high pass-filtered videos induced similar changes in both refractive groups (an increase of 0.41 ± 0.40D and 0.46 ± 0.29D for myopes and emmetropes, respectively). Our measurements show that the human AR can be modified by spatial frequency selective contrast adaptation although these were short-term effects. The perhaps most striking finding was that adaptation to low pass filtered videos had opposite effects on the AR in emmetropes and myopes. It remains to be studied whether these differences were a consequence of myopia or a contributing factor in myopia development.

Contrast adaptation of flankers reduces collinear facilitation and inhibition

Increase (facilitation) or decrease (inhibition) of contrast sensitivity for a Gabor patch presented between two collinear flankers is a well-studied contextual modulation phenomenon. It has been suggested that this effect has its neural bases in the primary visual cortex, specifically the horizontal connections between hypercolumns with similar orientation and spatial frequency selectivity. Another typical phenomenon dependent on early visual areas is contrast adaptation, in which the neural response to a contrast stimulus is decreased after exposure. Here, we investigated the effect of contrast adaptation of the flankers on the magnitude of collinear modulation by testing whether contrast adaptation reduced collinear facilitation and collinear inhibition. Results showed dissociation in the effect of collinear flanker adaptation, which increased contrast thresholds for the target in the facilitatory configuration and reduced them in the inhibitory configuration. Moreover, the effect was specific for the collinear configuration, since contrast adaptation of orthogonal flankers did not affect the contrast of the target, pointing towards the involvement of early visual units specific for orientation. Surprisingly, the same pattern of results was also confirmed when the inhibitory configuration was tested with low-contrast flankers, indicating that the effect of adaptation does not depend on a decrease in perceived contrast of the flankers. Taken together, these results suggest that contrast adaptation disrupts collinear modulation and that contrast thresholds can be affected by adapting portions of the visual field outside the receptive field of the units processing the contrast of the target (i.e., the flankers).

Changes of tuning but not dynamics of contrast adaptation with age

Normal aging results in pronounced optical and neural changes in the visual system. Processes of adaptation are thought to help compensate for many of these changes in order to maintain perceptual constancy, but it is uncertain how stable adaptation itself remains with aging. We compared the dynamics of adaptation in young (aged 19-24 years) and older (aged 66-74) adults. Contrast thresholds for Gabor patterns were tracked during and after 300 s adaptation to vertical and horizontal Gabor patches. The time course of contrast adaptation and asymptotic adaptation magnitude were similar between older and young adults when normalized for their respective baseline thresholds. Older adults showed stronger transfer of adaptation to the orthogonal orientation and there was an asymmetry between the transfer of adaptation between the horizontal and vertical orientations for both groups. These results suggest age-related changes in orientation tuning while the processes of cortical contrast adaptation remain largely intact with aging.

Contrast Adaptation in Pseudophakic Patients with Macular Disorders

PURPOSE

To learn whether contrast adaptation, induced by positive spherical defocus, is compromised by macular disorders such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD) or epiretinal membranes (ERM) and to gain further insight in the functionality of the pathological macula and the level of "functional reserve" often postulated for the indication of presbyopia correcting IOLs.

METHODS

In a pilot study, patients with macular disorders, AMD and ERM, (n = 10) and healthy volunteers (n = 10) were tested to quantify contrast adaption after +4 D defocus for 10 min, by performing an interocular contrast matching task. Subjects manually adjusted the perceived contrast of the test patch as seen by the test eye to match to the contrast of a target patch with a fixed Michelson contrast of 0.2 as seen by the contralateral untreated eye.

RESULTS

Patients with macular disorders subjectively matched the 0.2 target contrast with a contrast of 0.24 ± 0.06 (mean ± SD) before adaptation and with a contrast of 0.19 ± 0.04 after adaptation (p < 0.05). Accordingly, patients with macular disorders showed an induced contrast gain by adaptation of 0.05 (27%), which was not different from the control group, which showed an induced contrast gain by adaptation of 0.06 (35%).

CONCLUSION

Patients with mild and moderate macular disorders, such as AMD and ERM, show an induced contrast adaptation, i.e. a gain in contrast sensitivity, at 3.2 cpd, which is not different in level from the induced contrast adaptation in healthy subjects. Macular disorders do not prevent adaptation of the patient's visual system to low contrast or blurred retinal images. Therefore, the implantation of presbyopia correcting IOLs is not a strict exclusion criterion for these patients, but the progressive nature of the macular disorder must be taken into account.

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.