Contrast and lustre: A model that accounts for eleven different forms of contrast discrimination in binocular vision.

Our goal here is a more complete understanding of how information about luminance contrast is encoded and used by the binocular visual system. In two-interval forced-choice experiments we assessed observers' ability to discriminate changes in contrast that could be an increase or decrease of contrast in one or both eyes, or an increase in one eye coupled with a decrease in the other (termed IncDec). The base or pedestal contrasts were either in-phase or out-of-phase in the two eyes. The opposed changes in the IncDec condition did not cancel each other out, implying that along with binocular summation, information is also available from mechanisms that do not sum the two eyes' inputs. These might be monocular mechanisms. With a binocular pedestal, monocular increments of contrast were much easier to see than monocular decrements. These findings suggest that there are separate binocular (B) and monocular (L,R) channels, but only the largest of the three responses, max(L,B,R), is available to perception and decision. Results from contrast discrimination and contrast matching tasks were described very accurately by this model. Stimuli, data, and model responses can all be visualized in a common binocular contrast space, allowing a more direct comparison between models and data. Some results with out-of-phase pedestals were not accounted for by the max model of contrast coding, but were well explained by an extended model in which gratings of opposite polarity create the sensation of lustre. Observers can discriminate changes in lustre alongside changes in contrast.

Binocular fusion, suppression and diplopia for blurred edges.

PURPOSE: (1) To devise a model-based method for estimating the probabilities of binocular fusion, interocular suppression and diplopia from psychophysical judgements, (2) To map out the way fusion, suppression and diplopia vary with binocular disparity and blur of single edges shown to each eye, (3) To compare the binocular interactions found for edges of the same vs opposite contrast polarity. METHODS: Test images were single, horizontal, Gaussian-blurred edges, with blur B = 1-32 min arc, and vertical disparity 0-8.B, shown for 200 ms. In the main experiment, observers reported whether they saw one central edge, one offset edge, or two edges. We argue that the relation between these three response categories and the three perceptual states (fusion, suppression, diplopia) is indirect and likely to be distorted by positional noise and criterion effects, and so we developed a descriptive, probabilistic model to estimate both the perceptual states and the noise/criterion parameters from the data. RESULTS: (1) Using simulated data, we validated the model-based method by showing that it recovered fairly accurately the disparity ranges for fusion and suppression, (2) The disparity range for fusion (Panum's limit) increased greatly with blur, in line with previous studies. The disparity range for suppression was similar to the fusion limit at large blurs, but two or three times the fusion limit at small blurs. This meant that diplopia was much more prevalent at larger blurs, (3) Diplopia was much more frequent when the two edges had opposite contrast polarity. A formal comparison of models indicated that fusion occurs for same, but not opposite, polarities. Probability of suppression was greater for unequal contrasts, and it was always the lower-contrast edge that was suppressed. CONCLUSIONS: Our model-based data analysis offers a useful tool for probing binocular fusion and suppression psychophysically. The disparity range for fusion increased with edge blur but fell short of complete scale-invariance. The disparity range for suppression also increased with blur but was not close to scale-invariance. Single vision occurs through fusion, but also beyond the fusion range, through suppression. Thus suppression can serve as a mechanism for extending single vision to larger disparities, but mainly for sharper edges where the fusion range is small (5-10 min arc). For large blurs the fusion range is so much larger that no such extension may be needed.

The slope of the psychometric function and non-stationarity of thresholds in spatiotemporal contrast vision.

The slope of the two-interval, forced-choice psychometric function (e.g. the Weibull parameter, ß) provides valuable information about the relationship between contrast sensitivity and signal strength. However, little is known about how or whether ß varies with stimulus parameters such as spatiotemporal frequency and stimulus size and shape. A second unresolved issue concerns the best way to estimate the slope of the psychometric function. For example, if an observer is non-stationary (e.g. their threshold drifts between experimental sessions), ß will be underestimated if curve fitting is performed after collapsing the data across experimental sessions. We measured psychometric functions for 2 experienced observers for 14 different spatiotemporal configurations of pulsed or flickering grating patches and bars on each of 8 days. We found ß≈3 to be fairly constant across almost all conditions, consistent with a fixed nonlinear contrast transducer and/or a constant level of intrinsic stimulus uncertainty (e.g. a square law transducer and a low level of intrinsic uncertainty). Our analysis showed that estimating a single ß from results averaged over several experimental sessions was slightly more accurate than averaging multiple estimates from several experimental sessions. However, the small levels of non-stationarity (SD≈0.8dB) meant that the difference between the estimates was, in practice, negligible.

Mach bands and multiscale models of spatial vision: the role of first, second, and third derivative operators in encoding bars and edges.

Ernst Mach observed that light or dark bands could be seen at abrupt changes of luminance gradient in the absence of peaks or troughs in luminance. Many models of feature detection share the idea that bars, lines, and Mach bands are found at peaks and troughs in the output of even-symmetric spatial filters. Our experiments assessed the appearance of Mach bands (position and width) and the probability of seeing them on a novel set of generalized Gaussian edges. Mach band probability was mainly determined by the shape of the luminance profile and increased with the sharpness of its corners, controlled by a single parameter (n). Doubling or halving the size of the images had no significant effect. Variations in contrast (20%-80%) and duration (50-300 ms) had relatively minor effects. These results rule out the idea that Mach bands depend simply on the amplitude of the second derivative, but a multiscale model, based on Gaussian-smoothed first- and second-derivative filtering, can account accurately for the probability and perceived spatial layout of the bands. A key idea is that Mach band visibility depends on the ratio of second- to first-derivative responses at peaks in the second-derivative scale-space map. This ratio is approximately scale-invariant and increases with the sharpness of the corners of the luminance ramp, as observed. The edges of Mach bands pose a surprisingly difficult challenge for models of edge detection, but a nonlinear third-derivative operation is shown to predict the locations of Mach band edges strikingly well. Mach bands thus shed new light on the role of multiscale filtering systems in feature coding.

The effect of interocular phase difference on perceived contrast.

Binocular vision is traditionally treated as two processes: the fusion of similar images, and the interocular suppression of dissimilar images (e.g. binocular rivalry). Recent work has demonstrated that interocular suppression is phase-insensitive, whereas binocular summation occurs only when stimuli are in phase. But how do these processes affect our perception of binocular contrast? We measured perceived contrast using a matching paradigm for a wide range of interocular phase offsets (0-180°) and matching contrasts (2-32%). Our results revealed a complex interaction between contrast and interocular phase. At low contrasts, perceived contrast reduced monotonically with increasing phase offset, by up to a factor of 1.6. At higher contrasts the pattern was non-monotonic: perceived contrast was veridical for in-phase and antiphase conditions, and monocular presentation, but increased a little at intermediate phase angles. These findings challenge a recent model in which contrast perception is phase-invariant. The results were predicted by a binocular contrast gain control model. The model involves monocular gain controls with interocular suppression from positive and negative phase channels, followed by summation across eyes and then across space. Importantly, this model--applied to conditions with vertical disparity--has only a single (zero) disparity channel and embodies both fusion and suppression processes within a single framework.

Nonlinearities in the binocular combination of luminance and contrast.

We studied the rules by which visual responses to luminous targets are combined across the two eyes. Previous work has found very different forms of binocular combination for targets defined by increments and by decrements of luminance, with decrement data implying a severe nonlinearity before binocular combination. We ask whether this difference is due to the luminance of the target, the luminance of the background, or the sign of the luminance excursion. We estimated the pre-binocular nonlinearity (power exponent) by fitting a computational model to ocular equibrightness matches. The severity of the nonlinearity had a monotonic dependence on the signed difference between target and background luminance. For dual targets, in which there was both a luminance increment and a luminance decrement (e.g. contrast), perception was governed largely by the decrement. The asymmetry in the nonlinearities derived from the subjective matching data made a clear prediction for visual performance: there should be more binocular summation for detecting luminance increments than for detecting luminance decrements. This prediction was confirmed by the results of a subsequent experiment. We discuss the relation between these results and luminance nonlinearities such as a logarithmic transform, as well as the involvement of contemporary model architectures of binocular vision.

Mach edges: local features predicted by 3rd derivative spatial filtering.

Edges are key points of information in visual scenes. One important class of models supposes that edges correspond to the steepest parts of the luminance profile, implying that they can be found as peaks and troughs in the response of a gradient (1st derivative) filter, or as zero-crossings in the 2nd derivative (ZCs). We tested those ideas using a stimulus that has no local peaks of gradient and no ZCs, at any scale. The stimulus profile is analogous to the Mach ramp, but it is the luminance gradient (not the absolute luminance) that increases as a linear ramp between two plateaux; the luminance profile is a blurred triangle-wave. For all image-blurs tested, observers marked edges at or close to the corner points in the gradient profile, even though these were not gradient maxima. These Mach edges correspond to peaks and troughs in the 3rd derivative. Thus Mach edges are inconsistent with many standard edge-detection schemes, but are nicely predicted by a recent model that finds edge points with a 2-stage sequence of 1st then 2nd derivative operators, each followed by a half-wave rectifier.

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.