Binocular summation of equal-energy flashes of unequal duration

To determine if binocular summation occurs when increment flashes are of equal energy (Bloch’s law) but unequal in luminance-duration parameters, three Ss made temporal forced-choice judgments: (1) monocularly, (2) binocularly when the flashes to each eye were identical, (3) binocularly when the flashes to each eye were of equal energy but different in terms of their luminance and duration parameters, and (4) binocularly when flashes to each eye were separated by 100 msec. Binocular detection rates were consistently superior to monocular detection rates. Similarity in performance between Conditions 2 and 3 indicates that the binocular visual system responds only to the total energy of each monocular flash. The data from two Ss reveal that binocular performance was greater than that predicted on the basis of probability summation.     

Binocular detection of positive and negative flashes

Binocular forced-choice detection rates were measured under conditions where both eyes received positive flashes, both eyes received negative flashes, and one eye received a positive flash while the other received a negative flash. When both eyes received the same kind of flash, both positive or both negative, detection rates were,greater than probability summation. When one eye received a positive flash while the other received a negative flash, detection rates were near a level expected on the basis of probability summation. It is concluded that, at the level of forced-choice detection. positive and negative flashes are detected as though they were separate, independent events.     

Binocular summation in the evoked cortical potential

Computer-averaged evoked potentials were recorded from six subjects presented with flashes under conditions of binocular and monocular viewing, with a device fitted over each eye to produce ganzfeld conditions. Tests were run with red light and with blue. Analysis of the evoked potentials indicates a substantially larger amplitude with binocular stimulation.     

Binocular summation in the perception of form at brief durations

Visual form identification at brief durations was studied under: (a) monocular presentation; (b) dichopic presentation where the same form was presented successively on noncorresponding areas; and (c) dichopic presentation where the same form was presented on corresponding areas simultaneously and successively. Form identification for noncorresponding area dichopic presentation was at the level to be expected from 2independent chances to perceive. Both simultaneous and successive dichopic presentation on corresponding areas gave identification accuracy significantly above the level predicted by the assumption of independence. However, the binocular summation was not complete. When the same amount of energy entering the visual system in a binocular presentation was given in a monocular stimulation, the latter condition gave significantly better identification.     

Binocular information summation and the serial processing model

An experiment was performed to ascertain whether a particular member of the class of sequential processing models (Estes & Taylor, 1964; Townsend, 1966) should be further developed in terms of the contributions of information from the separate eyes. Using the detection paradigm (Estes & Taylor, 1964), nine Ss were each run 576 trials under each of three viewing conditions: (a) monocular left, (b) monocular right, and (c) binocular, after four days of practice and calibration. The serial processing model was used to make predictions for three possible cases of binocular information summation: (a) complete independence of the monocular channels, (b) partial independence of the monocular channels and (c) complete dependence in the monocular channels. Complete dependence provided the best fit to the data with a possible stress on use of a “best” eye, but a marginal level of significance was obtained between a simple average of monocular performance and binocular performance with transformed scores. Thus, although there seems to be little or no information summation in terms of the present model of multi-symbol perception, follow-up experiments were suggested to further delineate monocular-binocular relationships in the detection paradigm.     

Binocular summation in the perception of form at brief durations

Visual form identification at brief durations was studied under: (a) monocular presentation; (b) dichopic presentation where the same form was presented successively on noncorresponding areas; and (c) dichopic presentation where the same form was presented on corresponding areas simultaneously and successively. Form identification for noncorresponding area dichopic presentation was at the level to be expected from 2 independent chances to perceive. Both simultaneous and successive dichopic presentation on corresponding areas gave identification accuracy significantly above the level predicted by the assumption of independence. However, the binocular summation was not complete. When the same amount of energy entering the visual system in a binocular presentation was given in a monocular stimulation, the latter condition gave significantly better identification.     

Binocular interactions in suprathreshold contrast perception

Suprathreshold binocular contrast interactions were studied psychophysically. A split-screen CRT display was used to present separate sine-wave gratings to the observer’s left and right eyes. The method of constant stimuli and a modified method of adjustment were used to find sets of binoculartest patterns that matched a given binocularstandard. Test patterns consisted of the simultaneous presentation of sine-wave gratings that differed in contrast to the left and right eyes. Standard patterns consisted of identical sine-wave gratings presented to the two eyes, and had the same spatial frequency as the test patterns. Binocular contrast matching functions were obtained for several standard contrasts at 1 and 8 c/deg. Binocular matching functions were obtained for luminance increments as well. The binocular contrast matching functions departed from a simple binocular averaging rule, and behaved as if the eye receiving the higher contrast disproportionately dominated the binocular contrast percept. Departures from the binocular averaging rule were slightly greater for higher standard contrasts. Spatial frequency had little effect, and the luminance increment matching functions also departed from the binocular averaging rule. There was evidence for a contrast version of Fechner’s paradox and for substantial individual differences in a form of ocular dominance. In a further experiment, additivity of suprathreshold binocular contrast summation was examined by testing the double-cancellation condition. We found no systematic violations of additivity at 1 and 8 c/deg. Models of suprathreshold binocular contrast summation were examined.     

Binocular contrast interactions in two-frame motion discrimination

Previous studies have shown that two-frame motion detection thresholds are elevated if one frame's contrast is raised, despite the increase in average contrast--the "contrast paradox". In this study, we investigated if such contrast interactions occurred at a monocular or binocular site of visual processing. Two-frame motion direction discrimination thresholds were measured for motion frames that were presented binocularly, dichoptically or interocularly. Thresholds for each presentation condition were measured for motion frames that comprised either matched or unmatched contrasts. The results showed that contrast mechanisms producing the contrast paradox combine contrast signals from both eyes prior to motion computation. Furthermore, the results are consistent with the existence of monocular and binocular contrast gain control mechanisms that coexist either as combined or independent systems.     

Binocular summation of chromatic changes as measured by visual reaction time

We determined visual reaction times to monocular and binocular changes in the luminance of isochromatic stimuli and to monocular and binocular changes in the color of isoluminant stimuli. Two isoluminant color changes were tested: chromatic variations along the red-green axis of Boynton's (1986) two-stage color vision model and chromatic variations along the yellow-blue axis of the same model. The results indicate a greater degree of binocular summation for luminance change than for color change. This result was largely independent of the motor component of reaction time.     

Binocular rivalry and the contrast at contours

Binocular rivalry was recorded between various achromatic figures in or near the foveae. For a pair of intersecting contours, one in the field of each eye, it was found that the percentage of time for which a contour was dominant at the point of intersection increased with the contrast at that contour, and also with average luminance when contrast was constant. Further, for 1° circles in corresponding positions in the two fields, one darker than its surround and one lighter, the same results were obtained. Various auxiliary results, on rate of rivalry, eye-dominance, the occasional mixture of the rivalling stimuli, and binocular lustre, are given. Finally the relationship between predominance in rivalry and perceived brightness is discussed.     

Simultaneous detection and recognition of chromatic flashes

Studies of simultaneous detection and recognition were performed to test alternative models of the detection process, signal detection theory and low-threshold theory. Sensitivity in a detection experiment was independent of whether the type of signal (red or green light flash) was known in advance, because only one type of s trial was possible, or was unknown because either stimulus could occur. When a recognition judgment was added to either a binary or rating-scale detection response, Ss were able to report the nature of the stimulus at better than chance levels even when they indicated that the stimulus was not detected. Since such performance occurred when Ss used detection responses likely to have been given only in the nondetect state, the data lead to the rejection of low-threshold theory.     

Binocular detection by normal and stereoblind observers

Binocular forced-choice detection performance was measured in three stereoblind observers and four observers with normal stereopsis. Detection rates of normal observers were greater than expected from probability summation, while those of the stereoblind observers were near or at a level expected from probability. It is concluded that binocular summation is reduced or absent in stereoblind persons.     

Binocular detection of masked patterns in young and old observers

A visual pattern embedded in noise is detected appreciably better when the stimulus complex contains interocular cues (dichoptic condition) than when such cues are absent (binoptic condition). In a recent study (F. Speranza, G. Moraglia, & B. A. Schneider, 1995) the authors showed that the relative difference between binoptic and dichoptic thresholds does not change with age. However, older adults showed higher binoptic and dichoptic thresholds, thus suggesting an age-related difficulty with degraded stimulation. In this article the authors first replicated these findings and proceeded next to investigating whether age-related changes in processing efficiency, additive internal noise, and the spatial frequency bandwidth of the detecting filters could account, separately or concurrently, for the elevated thresholds in noise exhibited by the older adults. Results indicate that this increase is not attributable to age-related changes in filter bandwidth or internal noise. Rather, the findings can be explained in terms of a decrease in processing efficiency with age.     

An analysis of visual detection by temporal probability summation

The probability of detection by temporal probability summation (TPS) is derived assuming a non-white Gaussian noise process, characterised by a finite second spectral moment λ₂; the assumption of stationary noise is discussed with respect to neurophysiological findings suggesting multiplicative noise for individual neurons. The usual white-noise assumption is shown to imply inconsistent detection models. d^′-estimates for 2AFC-experiments do not depend on the value of λ₂ and do not differ from those derived from the standard SDT-assumptions, in contrast to d^′-estimates for yes-no-experiments, which depend on the probability of false alarms. Estimates of properties of a visual channel depend on whether detection is by TPS or temporal peak detection (TPD); it is argued that TPD is not a special case of TPS, and that subjects chose a TPS- or a TPD-strategy depending on experimental conditions.     

Binocular and monocular detection of Gabor patches in binocular two-dimensional noise

Contrast thresholds for detecting sine-wave Gabor patches in two-dimensional externally added random-pixel noise were measured. Thresholds were obtained for monocular and binocular signals in the presence of spatial correlated (identical) and uncorrelated (independent) noise in the two eyes. Measurements were obtained at four different spectral densities of noise (including zero). Thresholds were higher for monocular stimuli than for binocular, and higher in the presence of correlated noise compared to uncorrelated noise. The magnitude of binocular summation, similar in correlated and uncorrelated noise, decreased with increasing noise strength. The independent contributions of internal noise and sampling efficiency to detection were analysed. Sampling efficiencies were higher for binocular than for monocular viewing for both types of noise, with values being higher with uncorrelated noise. Binocular stimuli showed a lower equivalent noise level compared to the mean monocular case for both types of noise.     

Binocular unmasking with unequal interocular contrast: The case for multiple Cyclopean eyes

Under certain conditions, the detection threshold for a sinusoidal grating embedded in a noisy background may be an order of magnitude lower when binocular cues are available than when monocular cues only are present. Such binocular unmasking occurs only when the degree of interocular disparity for the target differs from that of the background. Two classes of models have been advanced to account for such unmasking. The first assumes that orientation-specific, spatial frequency channels in each eye encode the amplitude and phase of the spatial frequency component of the pattern the channel is tuned to detect. Thus, a difference in interocular disparity between target and background could result in interocular amplitude and/or phase differences in left- and right-eye spatial frequency channels. When, however, there are no disparity differences between target and background, there will be no interocular differences in amplitude and phase in the left- and right-eye channels. In this model, then, binocular unmasking reflects the binocular system’s ability to respond to interocular amplitude and/or phase differences in the patterns presented to the two eyes. In the second class of models, it is assumed that the left and right-eye patterns are first summed to form a “Cyclopean” eye. In these models, detection depends on the effect this summation process has on the power spectrum of the summated patterns. To decide between these two classes of models, we observed the occurrence of binocular unmasking when (1) the contrast of masker and signal was varied identically in both eyes and (2) the contrast of masker and signal was varied in one eye only. Consistent with our previous research, we found that the results can be accounted for in terms of a linear summation model of binocular unmasking; the alternative interocular phase detection model was disproved. The implications of these findings for binocular contrast summation in the absence of visual noise are discussed.     

Binocular unmasking with unequal interocular contrast: the case for multiple Cyclopean eyes.

Under certain conditions, the detection threshold for a sinusoidal grating embedded in a noisy background may be an order of magnitude lower when binocular cues are available than when monocular cues only are present. Such binocular unmasking occurs only when the degree of interocular disparity for the target differs from that of the background. Two classes of models have been advanced to account for such unmasking. The first assumes that orientation-specific, spatial frequency channels in each eye encode the amplitude and phase of the spatial frequency component of the pattern the channel is tuned to detect. Thus, a difference in interocular disparity between target and background could result in interocular amplitude and/or phase differences in left- and right-eye spatial frequency channels. When, however, there are no disparity differences between target and background, there will be no interocular differences in amplitude and phase in the left- and right-eye channels. In this model, then, binocular unmasking reflects the binocular system's ability to respond to interocular amplitude and/or phase differences in the patterns presented to the two eyes. In the second class of models, it is assumed that the left- and right-eye patterns are first summed to form a "Cyclopean" eye. In these models, detection depends on the effect this summation process has on the power spectrum of the summated patterns. To decide between these two classes of models, we observed the occurrence of binocular unmasking when (1) the contrast of masker and signal was varied identically in both eyes and (2) the contrast of masker and signal was varied in one eye only. Consistent with our previous research, we found that the results can be accounted for in terms of a linear summation model of binocular unmasking; the alternative interocular phase detection model was disproved. The implications of these findings for binocular contrast summation in the absence of visual noise are discussed.     

Model of visual adaptation and contrast detection

A three-component model of spatial vision is proposed, consisting of (1) a feedback stage, (2) a feedforward stage, (3) a threshold detector. The components correspond to physiological processes; in particular, the feedforward control signal corresponds to the “surround’s” signal in the receptive fields of retinal ganglion cells. The model makes appropriate qualitative predictions of: (l)a square-root law (Δl ∞ l^1/2) for detection at low luminances, (2) a Weber law (Δl ∞ l) at high luminances, (3) additivity of threshold masking effects at high background luminances, (4) receptive fields that, in the dark, consist only of an excitatory center and that, in the light, also contain inhibitory surrounds, (5) the variation of spatial characteristics of receptive fields depending on the temporal characteristic of the test stimulus used to measure them, (6) the subjective appearance of Mach bands, (7) sine-wave contrast-threshold transfer functions, (8) the frequent failure of disk-detection experiments to demonstrate inhibitory surrounds, and (9) various second-order threshold effects, such as reduced spatial integration for long-duration stimuli, reduced temporal integration for large-area stimuli, and the increased effect of background luminance on the detection of large-area stimuli. Predictions are improved by assuming there exist various sizes of receptive fields that determine thresholds jointly.