Reduced surround suppression in monocular motion perception.

Motion discrimination of large stimuli is impaired at high contrast and short durations. This psychophysical result has been linked with the center-surround suppression found in neurons of area MT. Recent physiology results have shown that most frontoparallel MT cells respond more strongly to binocular than to monocular stimulation. Here we measured the surround suppression strength under binocular and monocular viewing. Thirty-nine participants took part in two experiments: (a) where the nonstimulated eye viewed a blank field of the same luminance (n = 8) and (b) where it was occluded with a patch (n = 31). In both experiments, we measured duration thresholds for small (1 deg diameter) and large (7 deg) drifting gratings of 1 cpd with 85% contrast. For each subject, a Motion Suppression Index (MSI) was computed by subtracting the duration thresholds in logarithmic units of the large minus the small stimulus. Results were similar in both experiments. Combining the MSI of both experiments, we found that the strength of suppression for binocular condition (MSIbinocular = 0.249 ± 0.126 log10 (ms)) is 1.79 times higher than under monocular viewing (MSImonocular = 0.139 ± 0.137 log10 (ms)). This increase is too high to be explained by the higher perceived contrast of binocular stimuli and offers a new way of testing whether MT neurons account for surround suppression. Potentially, differences in surround suppression reported in clinical populations may reflect altered binocular processing.

Visual motion discrimination experiments reveal small differences between males and females.

Recent results have shown that males have lower duration thresholds for motion direction discrimination than females. Measuring contrast thresholds, a previous study has shown that males have a greater sensitivity to fine details and fast flickering stimuli than females, and that females have a higher sensitivity to low spatial frequencies modulated at low temporal frequencies. Here, we present the data of a contrast-detection motion discrimination experiment and a reanalysis of four different motion discrimination experiments where we compare duration thresholds for males and females using different spatial frequencies, stimulus sizes, contrasts, and temporal frequencies (in two experiments, motion surround suppression was measured). Results from the main experiment and the reanalysis show that, in general, the association between sex and contrast and duration thresholds for motion discrimination is not significant, with males and females showing similar data patterns. Only the reanalysis of one out of four studies revealed different duration thresholds between males and females paired with a strong effect size supporting previous results in the literature, although motion surround suppression was identical between groups. Importantly, most of our results do not show significant differences between males and females in contrast and duration thresholds, suggesting that the sex variable may not be as relevant as previously claimed when testing visual motion discrimination.

Estimation of Torso Vibrotactile Thresholds Using Eccentric Rotating Mass Motors.

The characterization of vibrotactile perception is crucial to accurately configure haptic devices and create appropriate stimuli for improving user performance in human-machine interaction systems. This article presents a study aiming to determine the absolute and differential vibrotactile thresholds in different areas of the torso to develop reliable haptic patterns to be displayed using a haptic vest. In the 'absolute threshold' experiment, we measure the minimum detectable vibration using a forced-choice task. Furthermore, in the 'differential threshold' experiment, we measure the minimum frequency change needed for users to discriminate two successive vibrotactile stimuli using a vibration matching task. The first experiment does not show differences between absolute thresholds, opening up the possibility of setting a unique minimal vibration for creating haptic patterns. Similarly, the second experiment does not show differences between differential thresholds. Moreover, as these thresholds follow Weber's law, it is viable to estimate any upper or lower differential threshold for any reference stimulus using a K-value. These results are a first step for creating vibrotactile patterns over the torso with the employed eccentric rotating mass motors. Moreover, the whole study provides a method to obtain these psychophysical values since the usage of different motors can change these results.

Testing the link between visual suppression and intelligence.

The impairment to discriminate the motion direction of a large high contrast stimulus or to detect a stimulus surrounded by another one is called visual suppression and is the result of the normal function of our visual inhibitory mechanisms. Recently, Melnick et al. (2013), using a motion discrimination task, showed that intelligence strongly correlates with visual suppression (r = 0.71). Cook et al. (2016) also showed a strong link between contrast surround suppression and IQ (r = 0.87), this time using a contrast matching task. Our aim is to test this link using two different visual suppression tasks: a motion discrimination task and a contrast detection task. Fifty volunteers took part in the experiments. Using Bayesian staircases, we measured duration thresholds in the motion experiment and contrast thresholds in the spatial experiment. Although we found a much weaker effect, our results from the motion experiment still replicate previous results supporting the link between motion surround suppression and IQ (r = 0.43). However, our results from the spatial experiment do not support the link between contrast surround suppression and IQ (r = -0.09). Methodological differences between this study and previous studies which could explain these discrepancies are discussed.

Contrast thresholds reveal different visual masking functions in humans and praying mantises.

Recently, we showed a novel property of the Hassenstein-Reichardt detector, namely that insect motion detection can be masked by 'undetectable' noise, i.e. visual noise presented at spatial frequencies at which coherently moving gratings do not elicit a response (Tarawneh et al., 2017). That study compared the responses of human and insect motion detectors using different ways of quantifying masking (contrast threshold in humans and masking tuning function in insects). In addition, some adjustments in experimental procedure, such as presenting the stimulus at a short viewing distance, were necessary to elicit a response in insects. These differences offer alternative explanations for the observed difference between human and insect responses to visual motion noise. Here, we report the results of new masking experiments in which we test whether differences in experimental paradigm and stimulus presentation between humans and insects can account for the undetectable noise effect reported earlier. We obtained contrast thresholds at two signal and two noise frequencies in both humans and praying mantises (Sphodromantis lineola), and compared contrast threshold differences when noise has the same versus different spatial frequency as the signal. Furthermore, we investigated whether differences in viewing geometry had any qualitative impact on the results. Consistent with our earlier finding, differences in contrast threshold show that visual noise masks much more effectively when presented at signal spatial frequency in humans (compared to a lower or higher spatial frequency), while in insects, noise is roughly equivalently effective when presented at either the signal spatial frequency or lower (compared to a higher spatial frequency). The characteristic difference between human and insect responses was unaffected by correcting for the stimulus distortion caused by short viewing distances in insects. These findings constitute stronger evidence that the undetectable noise effect reported earlier is a genuine difference between human and insect motion processing, and not an artefact caused by differences in experimental paradigms.