Daniel H. Baker

Binocular contrast vision at and above threshold

A fundamental problem for any visual system with binocular overlap is the combination of information from the two eyes. Electrophysiology shows that binocular integration of luminance contrast occurs early in visual cortex, but a specific systems architecture has not been established for human vision. Here, we address this by performing binocular summation and monocular, binocular, and dichoptic masking experiments for horizontal 1 cycle per degree test and masking gratings. These data reject three previously published proposals, each of which predict too little binocular summation and insufficient dichoptic facilitation. However, a simple development of one of the rejected models (the twin summation model) and a completely new model (the two-stage model) provide very good fits to the data. Two features common to both models are gently accelerating (almost linear) contrast transduction prior to binocular summation and suppressive ocular interactions that contribute to contrast gain control. With all model parameters fixed, both models correctly predict (1) systematic variation in psychometric slopes, (2) dichoptic contrast matching, and (3) high levels of binocular summation for various levels of binocular pedestal contrast. A review of evidence from elsewhere leads us to favor the two-stage model.

Psychophysical evidence for two routes to suppression before binocular summation of signals in human vision.

Visual mechanisms in primary visual cortex are suppressed by the superposition of gratings perpendicular to their preferred orientations. A clear picture of this process is needed to (i) inform functional architecture of image-processing models, (ii) identify the pathways available to support binocular rivalry, and (iii) generally advance our understanding of early vision. Here we use monoptic sine-wave gratings and cross-orientation masking (XOM) to reveal two cross-oriented suppressive pathways in humans, both of which occur before full binocular summation of signals. One is a within-eye (ipsiocular) pathway that is spatially broadband, immune to contrast adaptation and has a suppressive weight that tends to decrease with stimulus duration. The other pathway operates between the eyes (interocular), is spatially tuned, desensitizes with contrast adaptation and has a suppressive weight that increases with stimulus duration. When cross-oriented masks are presented to both eyes, masking is enhanced or diminished for conditions in which either ipsiocular or interocular pathways dominate masking, respectively. We propose that ipsiocular suppression precedes the influence of interocular suppression and tentatively associate the two effects with the lateral geniculate nucleus (or retina) and the visual cortex respectively. The interocular route is a good candidate for the initial pathway involved in binocular rivalry and predicts that interocular cross-orientation suppression should be found in cortical cells with predominantly ipsiocular drive.

Binocular contrast interactions: Dichoptic masking is not a single process

To decouple interocular suppression and binocular summation we varied the relative phase of mask and target in a 2IFC contrast-masking paradigm. In Experiment I, dichoptic mask gratings had the same orientation and spatial frequency as the target. For in-phase masking, suppression was strong (a log-log slope of approximately 1) and there was weak facilitation at low mask contrasts. Anti-phase masking was weaker (a log-log slope of approximately 0.7) and there was no facilitation. A two-stage model of contrast gain control [Meese, T.S., Georgeson, M.A. and Baker, D.H. (2006). Binocular contrast vision at and above threshold. Journal of Vision, 6: 1224-1243] provided a good fit to the in-phase results and fixed its free parameters. It made successful predictions (with no free parameters) for the anti-phase results when (A) interocular suppression was phase-indifferent but (B) binocular summation was phase sensitive. Experiments II and III showed that interocular suppression comprised two components: (i) a tuned effect with an orientation bandwidth of approximately +/-33 degrees and a spatial frequency bandwidth of >3 octaves, and (ii) an untuned effect that elevated threshold by a factor of between 2 and 4. Operationally, binocular summation was more tightly tuned, having an orientation bandwidth of approximately +/-8 degrees , and a spatial frequency bandwidth of approximately 0.5 octaves. Our results replicate the unusual shapes of the in-phase dichoptic tuning functions reported by Legge [Legge, G.E. (1979). Spatial frequency masking in human vision: Binocular interactions. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 69: 838-847]. These can now be seen as the envelope of the direct effects from interocular suppression and the indirect effect from binocular summation, which contaminates the signal channel with a mask that has been suppressed by the target.

Binocular vision in amblyopia: structure, suppression and plasticity

The amblyopic visual system was once considered to be structurally monocular. However, it now evident that the capacity for binocular vision is present in many observers with amblyopia. This has led to new techniques for quantifying suppression that have provided insights into the relationship between suppression and the monocular and binocular visual deficits experienced by amblyopes. Furthermore, new treatments are emerging that directly target suppressive interactions within the visual cortex and, on the basis of initial data, appear to improve both binocular and monocular visual function, even in adults with amblyopia. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of recent studies that have investigated the structure, measurement and treatment of binocular vision in observers with strabismic, anisometropic and mixed amblyopia.

Natural images dominate in binocular rivalry

Ecological approaches to perception have demonstrated that information encoding by the visual system is informed by the natural environment, both in terms of simple image attributes like luminance and contrast, and more complex relationships corresponding to Gestalt principles of perceptual organization. Here, we ask if this optimization biases perception of visual inputs that are perceptually bistable. Using the binocular rivalry paradigm, we designed stimuli that varied in either their spatiotemporal amplitude spectra or their phase spectra. We found that noise stimuli with “natural” amplitude spectra (i.e., amplitude content proportional to 1/f, where f is spatial or temporal frequency) dominate over those with any other systematic spectral slope, along both spatial and temporal dimensions. This could not be explained by perceived contrast measurements, and occurred even though all stimuli had equal energy. Calculating the effective contrast following attenuation by a model contrast sensitivity function suggested that the strong contrast dependency of rivalry provides the mechanism by which binocular vision is optimized for viewing natural images. We also compared rivalry between natural and phase-scrambled images and found a strong preference for natural phase spectra that could not be accounted for by observer biases in a control task. We propose that this phase specificity relates to contour information, and arises either from the activity of V1 complex cells, or from later visual areas, consistent with recent neuroimaging and single-cell work. Our findings demonstrate that human vision integrates information across space, time, and phase to select the input most likely to hold behavioral relevance.

On the relation between dichoptic masking and binocular rivalry

When our two eyes view incompatible images, the brain invokes suppressive processes to inhibit one image, and favor the other. Two phenomena are typically observed: dichoptic masking (reduced sensitivity to one image) for brief presentations, and binocular rivalry (alternation between the two images), over longer exposures. However, it is not clear if these two phenomena arise from a common suppressive process. We investigated this by measuring both threshold elevation in simultaneous dichoptic masking and mean percept durations in rivalry, whilst varying relative stimulus orientation. Masking and rivalry showed significant correlations, such that strong masking was associated with long dominance durations. A second experiment suggested that individual differences across both measures are also correlated. These findings are consistent with varying the magnitude of interocular suppression in computational models of both rivalry and masking, and imply the existence of a common suppressive process. Since dichoptic masking has been localised to the monocular neurons of V1, this is a plausible first stage of binocular rivalry.

Zero-dimensional noise: the best mask you never saw.

The transmission of weak signals through the visual system is limited by internal noise. Its level can be estimated by adding external noise, which increases the variance within the detecting mechanism, causing masking. But experiments with white noise fail to meet three predictions: (a) noise has too small an influence on the slope of the psychometric function, (b) masking occurs even when the noise sample is identical in each two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) interval, and (c) double-pass consistency is too low. We show that much of the energy of 2D white noise masks extends well beyond the pass-band of plausible detecting mechanisms and that this suppresses signal activity. These problems are avoided by restricting the external noise energy to the target mechanisms by introducing a pedestal with a mean contrast of 0% and independent contrast jitter in each 2AFC interval (termed zero-dimensional [0D] noise). We compared the jitter condition to masking from 2D white noise in double-pass masking and (novel) contrast matching experiments. Zero-dimensional noise produced the strongest masking, greatest double-pass consistency, and no suppression of perceived contrast, consistent with a noisy ideal observer. Deviations from this behavior for 2D white noise were explained by cross-channel suppression with no need to appeal to induced internal noise or uncertainty. We conclude that (a) results from previous experiments using white pixel noise should be re-evaluated and (b) 0D noise provides a cleaner method for investigating internal variability than pixel noise. Ironically then, the best external noise stimulus does not look noisy.

Contrast integration over area is extensive: a three-stage model of spatial summation

Classical studies of area summation measure contrast detection thresholds as a function of grating diameter. Unfortunately, (i) this approach is compromised by retinal inhomogeneity and (ii) it potentially confounds summation of signal with summation of internal noise. The Swiss cheese stimulus of T. S. Meese and R. J. Summers (2007) and the closely related Battenberg stimulus of T. S. Meese (2010) were designed to avoid these problems by keeping target diameter constant and modulating interdigitated checks of first-order carrier contrast within the stimulus region. This approach has revealed a contrast integration process with greater potency than the classical model of spatial probability summation. Here, we used Swiss cheese stimuli to investigate the spatial limits of contrast integration over a range of carrier frequencies (1-16 c/deg) and raised plaid modulator frequencies (0.25-32 cycles/check). Subthreshold summation for interdigitated carrier pairs remained strong (∼4 to 6 dB) up to 4 to 8 cycles/check. Our computational analysis of these results implied linear signal combination (following square-law transduction) over either (i) 12 carrier cycles or more or (ii) 1.27 deg or more. Our model has three stages of summation: short-range summation within linear receptive fields, medium-range integration to compute contrast energy for multiple patches of the image, and long-range pooling of the contrast integrators by probability summation. Our analysis legitimizes the inclusion of widespread integration of signal (and noise) within hierarchical image processing models. It also confirms the individual differences in the spatial extent of integration that emerge from our approach.

Interocular suppression in normal and amblyopic vision:spatio-temporal properties

We measured the properties of interocular suppression in strabismic amblyopes and compared these to dichoptic masking in binocularly normal observers. We used a dichoptic version of the well-established probed-sinewave paradigm that measured sensitivity to a brief target stimulus (one of four letters to be discriminated) in the amblyopic eye at different times relative to a suppression-inducing mask in the fixing eye. This was done using both sinusoidal steady state and transient approaches. The suppression-inducing masks were either modulations of luminance or contrast (full field, just overlaying the target, or just surrounding the target). Our results were interpreted using a descriptive model that included contrast gain control and spatio-temporal filtering prior to excitatory binocular combination. The suppression we measured, other than in magnitude, was not fundamentally different from normal dichoptic masking: lowpass spatio-temporal properties with similar contributions from both surround and overlay suppression.

Brain networks underlying bistable perception.

Bistable stimuli, such as the Necker Cube, demonstrate that experience can change in the absence of changes in the environment. Such phenomena can be used to assess stimulus-independent aspects of conscious experience. The current study used resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) to index stimulus-independent changes in neural activity to understand the neural architecture that determines dominance durations during bistable perception (using binocular rivalry and Necker cube stimuli). Anterior regions of the Superior Parietal Lobule (SPL) exhibited robust connectivity with regions of primary sensorimotor cortex. The strength of this regions connectivity with the striatum predicted shorter dominance durations during binocular rivalry, whereas its connectivity to pre-motor cortex predicted longer dominance durations for the Necker Cube. Posterior regions of the SPL, on the other hand, were coupled to associative cortex in the temporal and frontal lobes. The posterior SPLs connectivity to the temporal lobe predicted longer dominance during binocular rivalry. In conjunction with prior work, these data suggest that the anterior SPL contributes to perceptual rivalry through the inhibition of incongruent bottom up information, whereas the posterior SPL influences rivalry by supporting the current interpretation of a bistable stimulus. Our data suggests that the functional connectivity of the SPL with regions of sensory, motor, and associative cortex allows it to regulate the interpretation of the environment that forms the focus of conscious attention at a specific moment in time.