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 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 summation in detection of contrast flashes

We studied monocular and binocular detection of foveal flashes of different contrast. When background contours were binocularly fused, detectability (d’) of binocular test flashes was, on the average, twice the detectability of monocularly presented flashes. The precise amount of binocular advantage varied with test contrast: binocular improvement exceeded full summation for low test contrast, but fell below full summation at higher test contrasts. In the absence of contours in one eye, background luminances are not expected to sum, yet binocular detection is an average of 41.5% better than monocular detection. This indicates a difference in the functional organization of the fused binocular channel and a monocular channel.     

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.     

Are more items identified than can be reported?

Subjects are typically able to report only about four items from a many-item array presented tachistoscopically (full-report span). Current models of visual information processing disagree as to whether the limiting process is best represented as identification or as short-term memory. Estes and Taylor have argued that the number of items identified is up to twice the full-report span and, hence, that memory limits report. Experiment 1 here used a memory-probe method which showed that when no position report is required the large number of items that were identified in the Estes and Taylor paradigm is not greater than the number in a posticonic memory. Experiment 2 indicated that when position report is required the number of items identified (with correct position) does not exceed the number which can be reproduced in full report. These results support models in which memory is entailed by identification either as an aspect of the identification process or as a separate stage.     

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.     

Binocular processing of brightness information: a vector-sum model

The relation between monocular and binocular brightness was examined. Clear evidence was found that the interaction between visual channels in binocular processing of brightness information implicates both an apparent averaging of monocular brightness when they are grossly different and a partial summation when they approach equality. A vector-sum model is shown to predict these properties. A nonmetric method was used to fit such a model to data from three experiments in each of which 15 subjects estimated brightness of binocularly fused targets. Magnitude estimation was used in two experiments, and cateogry ratings were obtained in the third experiment. When it was assumed only that subjects' responses were monotone with perceived brightness, estimates of the model's parameters from the data of the three experiments were almost identical, indicating that results from magnitude estimati;n and category rating can converge once nonlinear response functions are eliminated.     

The psychophysical inquiry into binocular summation

Experiments that compare monocular and binocular visual performance of human psychophysical Os on a variety of visual tasks are reviewed. The review attempts to include all experiments published in English in this century, excluding work on stereopsis, rivalry, and evoked potentials. The concept of probability summation as a baseline for assessing the presence of neural summation is discussed, and the assumptions of several models for estimating probability summation are considered. Experiments are classified in terms of visual task, major categories being increment detection, flicker fusion, brightness magnitude, and contour resolution. A major conclusion is that binocular performance is superior for essentially all task categories and in most cases by a magnitude greater than that predicted by appropriate probability summation models.     

The acquisition of catching under monocular and binocular conditions

The effects of binocular and monocular viewing on spatial and temporal errors in one-handed catching were investigated in two experiments. The first experiment-using expert catchers-recorded more spatial errors under the monocular than under the binocular condition. No significant differences in the number of temporal errors were apparent. In a second experiment, which paradigm, relatively poor catchers were trained under both vision conditions. Its objective was to investigate whether the superior results obtained under the binocular condition in the first experiment, for the number of catches and number of spatial errors, could be attributed simply to the fact that subjects had more experience with binocular than monocular viewing. The following results occurred after a period of training (a) a significant reduction in the number of spatial errors under the monocular condition, reaching a level similar to that under the binocular condition; (b) no significant reduction in the number of spatial errors when subjects transferred from monocular to binocular viewing, and significantly more spatial errors when subjects transferred from binocular to monocular viewing; and (c) a training-sequence effect. The latter effect indicates that subjects had more benefit from training in the sequence monocular-binocular than vice versa. These findings are discussed in the context of the strategies of specificity of learning and use of multisources.     

Measurement of visual aftereffects and inferences about binocular mechanisms in human vision

There is conflicting evidence concerning the characteristics of binocular channels in the human visual system with respect to the existence of a 'pure' binocular channel that responds only to simultaneous stimulation of both eyes. Four experiments were conducted to resolve these discrepancies and to evaluate the evidence for the existence of such an exclusive binocular channel. In the first three studies, tilt aftereffects were measured after monocular adaptation. The relative sizes of the direct, interocularly transferred, and binocular aftereffects were not influenced by the configuration of the adapting pattern (experiment 1), or by the eye used for adaptation (experiment 2). There were also consistent interobserver differences in the relative sizes of the aftereffect seen after monocular adaptation (experiment 3). Taken together, these data raise questions about the appropriateness of a monocular adaptation paradigm for evaluating the presence of a pure binocular channel in observers with normal binocular vision. In experiment 4, in which the paradigm of alternating monocular adaptation was used, data were obtained that are consistent with the presence of a pure binocular channel.     

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.     

The binocular combination of chromatic contrast

How is chromatic contrast combined binocularly? One index of binocularity is the binocular contrast summation ratio (BCSR), which is the improvement in contrast sensitivity with binocular rather than monocular presentation. Simmons and Kingdom (1998, Vision Research 38 1063-1071) noted that BCSRs with some red-green isoluminant stimuli were suggestive of full linear summation. This suggestion was investigated further in four subjects by measuring binocular and monocular contrast thresholds for the detection of 0.5 cycle deg(1) isoluminant (red-green) and isochromatic (yellow-black) Gabor patches. These Gabor patches had either vertically or horizontally oriented carrier gratings and were either dichoptically in phase (same coloured bars in binocular correspondence) or in dichoptic anti-phase (opposite coloured bars in binocular correspondence). Full linear summation would be indicated by BCSRs of 2 for the in-phase and close to 0 for the anti-phase conditions. Mean BCSRs at isoluminance were 1.93 and 0.90, respectively, for the in-phase and anti-phase stimuli with horizontal carriers, the former being consistent with full linear summation, but the latter not. Despite these results, BCSRs obtained with isoluminant and isochromatic stimuli under similar conditions were not statistically distinguishable from each other, although there was a tendency for summation at isoluminance with in-phase stimuli to be higher and anti-phase stimuli to be lower. These data fall short of demonstrating full linear summation of chromatic contrast between the eyes under all presentation conditions, but they do indicate that there are strong binocular interactions at red-green isoluminance, which are similar to, and possibly even stronger than, those obtained with luminance stimuli.     

Further developments in binocular summation

This paper reviews experiments that bear on the issue of binocular summation, the superiority of binocular over monocular viewing on various visual tasks covering studies published since the appearance of a previous review of this literature by Blake and Fox (1973). The experiments are grouped into three main categories—those that deal with the specificity of binocular summation (i.e., the extent to which inputs to the two eyes must coincide spatially and temporally), those that study binocular summation on suprathreshold tasks, and those that correlate binocular summation with other aspects of binocular function. The last section of the paper critically reviews several models of binocular summation.     

The effects of binocular and motion-generated information on the perception of depth and height

The perception of distance and size in the presence of optical gradient information was investigated under four viewing conditions—binocular view with and without head motion, and monocular view with and without head motion. Subjects (60 adults) matched distance intervals (from 15 to 127 cm) and heights of a target triangle (from 5 to 15 cm) by adjusting the length of a metal tape. Both linear and power functions were fitted to each individual’s distance judgments, and the competing perceptual models were compared. For both models, it was found that binocular information was sufficient to specify relative, but not absolute, distance, that monocular information was sufficient to specify an orderly relation between target distance and judgment but not absolute distance, that average error was less in the binocular conditions, and that perceived distance was not affected in either condition by the addition of head motion. The analysis of size judgments revealed that monocular and binocular judgments did not differ, that matches made with and without head motion did not differ, and that, in all conditions, matches exceeded target heights by an average 30% to 40%. Judged size was also analyzed as a function of target distance. In all conditions but monocular view with head motion, the effect of distance was to increase size judgments. The distance judgments support the hypothesis (Purdy, 1958) that the binocular stimulus carries information that the monocular stimulus does not; they fail to support the hypothesis (Gibson, 1966) that observer motion adds information to the static stimulus. The size judgments support neither hypothesis but suggest an independence of perceived size from perceived distance.     

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.     

Suprathreshold binocular interactions for grating patterns

Binocular interactions of suprathreshold grating patterns have been investigated using a reaction time measure of contrast detection. Simple reaction times were determined for monocular and binocular viewing conditions over a contrast range from .63 to near threshold. The results from all subjects showed binocular summation for contrast levels near threshold, but there was considerable variation across subjects for contrast levels above threshold. Some subjects showed summation over the entire contrast range, but other subjects showed either binocular inhibition or binocular facilitation for some range of contrast levels. The pattern of binocular interaction for a given subject was consistent for several spatial frequencies. The differences in types of interaction between subjects, the variation in magnitude of binocular interaction with contrast level for each subject, and the data from experiments involving stimulation of noncorresponding retinal areas show that the binocular interactions found for suprathreshold stimuli cannot be accounted for on the basis of probability, and must, therefore, result from physiological interactions between the two eyes. These interactions have been investigated further under conditions of (1) induced fixation disparity, (2) horizontal gratings, and (3) orthogonally oriented gratings.     

Visual cues and perceived reachability

A rather consistent finding in studies of perceived (imagined) compared to actual movement in a reaching paradigm is the tendency to overestimate at midline. Explanations of such behavior have focused primarily on perceptions of postural constraints and the notion that individuals calibrate reachability in reference to multiple degrees of freedom, also known as the whole-body explanation. The present study examined the role of visual information in the form of binocular and monocular cues in perceived reachability. Right-handed participants judged the reachability of visual targets at midline with both eyes open, dominant eye occluded, and the non-dominant eye covered. Results indicated that participants were relatively accurate with condition responses not being significantly different in regard to total error. Analysis of the direction of error (mean bias) revealed effective accuracy across conditions with only a marginal distinction between monocular and binocular conditions. Therefore, within the task conditions of this experiment, it appears that binocular and monocular cues provide sufficient visual information for effective judgments of perceived reach at midline.     

Visual cues and perceived reachability

A rather consistent finding in studies of perceived (imagined) compared to actual movement in a reaching paradigm is the tendency to overestimate at midline. Explanations of such behavior have focused primarily on perceptions of postural constraints and the notion that individuals calibrate reachability in reference to multiple degrees of freedom, also known as the whole-body explanation. The present study examined the role of visual information in the form of binocular and monocular cues in perceived reachability. Right-handed participants judged the reachability of visual targets at midline with both eyes open, dominant eye occluded, and the non-dominant eye covered. Results indicated that participants were relatively accurate with condition responses not being significantly different in regard to total error. Analysis of the direction of error (mean bias) revealed effective accuracy across conditions with only a marginal distinction between monocular and binocular conditions. Therefore, within the task conditions of this experiment, it appears that binocular and monocular cues provide sufficient visual information for effective judgments of perceived reach at midline.     

Depth interval estimates from motion parallax and binocular disparity beyond interaction space

Static and dynamic observers provided binocular and monocular estimates of the depths between real objects lying well beyond interaction space. On each trial, pairs of LEDs were presented inside a dark railway tunnel. The nearest LED was always 40 m from the observer, with the depth separation between LED pairs ranging from 0 up to 248 m. Dynamic binocular viewing was found to produce the greatest (ie most veridical) estimates of depth magnitude, followed next by static binocular viewing, and then by dynamic monocular viewing. (No significant depth was seen with static monocular viewing.) We found evidence that both binocular and monocular dynamic estimates of depth were scaled for the observation distance when the ground plane and walls of the tunnel were visible up to the nearest LED. We conclude that both motion parallax and stereopsis provide useful long-distance depth information and that motion-parallax information can enhance the degree of stereoscopic depth seen.