David J. Holmes

Spatial and temporal dependencies of cross-orientation suppression in human vision.

A well-known property of orientation-tuned neurons in the visual cortex is that they are suppressed by the superposition of an orthogonal mask. This phenomenon has been explained in terms of physiological constraints (synaptic depression), engineering solutions for components with poor dynamic range (contrast normalization) and fundamental coding strategies for natural images (redundancy reduction). A common but often tacit assumption is that the suppressive process is equally potent at different spatial and temporal scales of analysis. To determine whether it is so, we measured psychophysical cross-orientation masking (XOM) functions for flickering horizontal Gabor stimuli over wide ranges of spatio-temporal frequency and contrast. We found that orthogonal masks raised contrast detection thresholds substantially at low spatial frequencies and high temporal frequencies (high speeds), and that small and unexpected levels of facilitation were evident elsewhere. The data were well fit by a functional model of contrast gain control, where (i) the weight of suppression increased with the ratio of temporal to spatial frequency and (ii) the weight of facilitatory modulation was the same for all conditions, but outcompeted by suppression at higher contrasts. These results (i) provide new constraints for models of primary visual cortex, (ii) associate XOM and facilitation with the transient magno- and sustained parvostreams, respectively, and (iii) reconcile earlier conflicting psychophysical reports on XOM.

Grating and plaid masks indicate linear summation in a contrast gain pool

In human vision, the response to luminance contrast at each small region in the image is controlled by a more global process where suppressive signals are pooled over spatial frequency and orientation bands. But what rules govern summation among stimulus components within the suppressive pool? We addressed this question by extending a pedestal plus pattern mask paradigm to use a stimulus with up to three mask components: a vertical 1 c/deg pedestal, plus pattern masks made from either a grating (orientation = -45 degrees ) or a plaid (orientation = +/-45 degrees ), with component spatial frequency of 3 c/deg. The overall contrast of both types of pattern mask was fixed at 20% (i.e., plaid component contrasts were 10%). We found that both of these masks transformed conventional dipper functions (threshold vs. pedestal contrast with no pattern mask) in exactly the same way: The dipper region was raised and shifted to the right, but the dipper handles superimposed. This equivalence of the two pattern masks indicates that contrast summation between the plaid components was perfectly linear prior to the masking stage. Furthermore, the pattern masks did not drive the detecting mechanism above its detection threshold because they did not abolish facilitation by the pedestal (Foley, 1994). Therefore, the pattern masking could not be attributed to within-channel masking, suggesting that linear summation of contrast signals takes place within a suppressive contrast gain pool. We present a quantitative model of the effects and discuss the implications for neurophysiological models of the process.

Adaptation and gain pool summation: alternative models and masking data

Foley [J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 11 (1994) 1710] has proposed an influential psychophysical model of masking in which mask components in a contrast gain pool are raised to an exponent before summation and divisive inhibition. We tested this summation rule in experiments in which contrast detection thresholds were measured for a vertical 1 c/deg (or 2 c/deg) sine-wave component in the presence of a 3 c/deg (or 6 c/deg) mask that had either a single component oriented at -45 degrees or a pair of components oriented at +/-45 degrees. Contrary to the predictions of Foleys model 3, we found that for masks of moderate contrast and above, threshold elevation was predicted by linear summation of the mask components in the inhibitory stage of the contrast gain pool. We built this feature into two new models, referred to as the early adaptation model and the hybrid model. In the early adaptation model, contrast adaptation controls a threshold-like nonlinearity on the output of otherwise linear pathways that provide the excitatory and inhibitory inputs to a gain control stage. The hybrid model involves nonlinear and nonadaptable routes to excitatory and inhibitory stages as well as an adaptable linear route. With only six free parameters, both models provide excellent fits to the masking and adaptation data of Foley and Chen [Vision Res. 37 (1997) 2779] but unlike Foley and Chens model, are able to do so with only one adaptation parameter. However, only the hybrid model is able to capture the features of Foleys (1994) pedestal plus orthogonal fixed mask data. We conclude that (1) linear summation of inhibitory components is a feature of contrast masking, and (2) that the main aftereffect of spatial adaptation on contrast increment thresholds can be assigned to a single site.

Contextual modulation involves suppression and facilitation from the center and the surround

In psychophysics, cross-orientation suppression (XOS) and cross-orientation facilitation (XOF) have been measured by investigating mask configuration on the detection threshold of a centrally placed patch of sine-wave grating. Much of the evidence for XOS and XOF comes from studies using low and high spatial frequencies, respectively, where the interactions are thought to arise from within (XOS) and outside (XOF) the footprint of the classical receptive field. We address the relation between these processes here by measuring the effects of various sizes of superimposed and annular cross-oriented masks on detection thresholds at two spatial scales (1 and 7 c/deg) and on contrast increment thresholds at 7 c/deg. A functional model of our results indicates the following (1) XOS and XOF both occur for superimposed and annular masks. (2) XOS declines with spatial frequency but XOF does not. (3) The spatial extent of the interactions does not scale with spatial frequency, meaning that surround-effects are seen primarily at high spatial frequencies. (4) There are two distinct processes involved in XOS: direct divisive suppression and modulation of self-suppression. (5) Whether XOS or XOF wins out depends upon their relative weights and mask contrast. These results prompt enquiry into the effect of spatial frequency at the single-cell level and place new constraints on image-processing models of early visual processing.

Orientation masking and cross-orientation suppression (XOS): implications for estimates of filter bandwidth.

Most contemporary models of spatial vision include a cross-oriented route to suppression (masking from a broadly tuned inhibitory pool), which is most potent at low spatial and high temporal frequencies (T. S. Meese & D. J. Holmes, 2007). The influence of this pathway can elevate orientation-masking functions without exciting the target mechanism, and because early psychophysical estimates of filter bandwidth did not accommodate this, it is likely that they have been overestimated for this corner of stimulus space. Here we show that a transient 40% contrast mask causes substantial binocular threshold elevation for a transient vertical target, and this declines from a mask orientation of 0° to about 40° (indicating tuning), and then more gently to 90°, where it remains at a factor of ∼4. We also confirm that cross-orientation masking is diminished or abolished at high spatial frequencies and for sustained temporal modulation. We fitted a simple model of pedestal masking and cross-orientation suppression (XOS) to our data and those of G. C. Phillips and H. R. Wilson (1984) and found the dependency of orientation bandwidth on spatial frequency to be much less than previously supposed. An extension of our linear spatial pooling model of contrast gain control and dilution masking (T. S. Meese & R. J. Summers, 2007) is also shown to be consistent with our results using filter bandwidths of ±20°. Both models include tightly and broadly tuned components of divisive suppression. More generally, because XOS and/or dilution masking can affect the shape of orientation-masking curves, we caution that variations in bandwidth estimates might reflect variations in processes that have nothing to do with filter bandwidth.

Remote facilitation in the Fourier domain

To explore spatial interactions between visual mechanisms in the Fourier domain we measured detection thresholds for vertical and horizontal sine-wave gratings (4.4 deg diameter) over a range of spatial frequencies (0.5-23 c/deg) in the presence of grating and plaid masks with component contrasts of 8%, orientations of +/-45 degrees and a spatial frequency of 1c/deg. The mask suppressed the target grating over a range of +/-1 octave, and the plaid produced more suppression than the grating, consistent with summation of mask components in a broadly tuned contrast gain pool. At greater differences in spatial frequency ( approximately 3 octaves), the plaid and grating masks both produced about 3 dB of facilitation (they reduced detection thresholds by a factor of about square root 2). At yet further distances ( approximately 4 octaves) the masks had no effect. The facilitation cannot be attributed to a reduction of uncertainty by the mask because (a) it occurs for mask components that have very different spatial frequencies and orientations from the test and (b) the large stimulus size and central fixation point mean there was no spatial uncertainty that could be reduced. We suggest the results are due to long-range sensory interactions (in the Fourier domain) between mask and test-channels. The effects could be due to either direct facilitation or disinhibition.