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 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 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.     

Constructing isoluminant stimuli for word recognition research: A precautionary study

Isoluminant stimuli are used increasingly often to investigate processes underlying visual word recognition. However, construction of isoluminant stimuli is not straightforward, and inappropriate construction may have the result of misinforming theories that relate word recognition to neurological function. To inform the use of isoluminant stimuli in studies of word recognition, the present article details two experiments in which isoluminant stimuli were constructed using physical onscreen luminance matching and heterochromatic flicker photometry (HFP) with four different stimulus types: disks, squares, rectangles, and letter strings. The findings reveal (1) substantial differences between isoluminance determined by physical onscreen luminance matching and HFP, (2) substantial differences in HFP isoluminance across stimulus types, and (3) substantial differences in HFP isoluminance across participants. These findings indicate that, in contrast to common practice in word recognition research, HFP provides a better indication of isoluminance than physical onscreen matching; but HFP stimuli should match those used in the experiment proper and should be used to assess isoluminance individually for each participant.     

Monocular unmasking of noise-embedded patterns.

Binocular disparity cues may help an observer "unmask" a target in a background, thereby enhancing its detectability (e.g., Moraglia & Schneider, 1992). Here, we sought to determine whether similar effects could be produced by monocular displacement cues resulting from a two-frame sequential presentation of a Gabor pattern (a sinusoidal modulation of luminance combined with a Gaussian modulation of local contrast) embedded in an unvarying field of two-dimensional Gaussian noise. The Gabor in the second frame was spatially displaced relative to its location in the first frame; the horizontal displacement corresponded to a phase shift of the peak spatial frequency of the Gabor of 0 degree, 90 degrees, 180 degrees, 360 degrees, or 540 degrees. Monocular detection thresholds for the Gabor were appreciably lower for the 90 degrees, 180 degrees, and 540 degrees shift, than for the 0 degree and 360 degrees values. We explain these findings in terms of a model that constitutes the monocular analog of our summation model of binocular unmasking.     

Binocular unmasking with vertical disparity

We recently found (Schneider, Moraglia, & Jepson, 1989) that the contrast threshold for the detection of a visual signal in a noisy background can be considerably lower when binocular cues are available then when monocular cues only are present. Here, we investigated the occurrence of binocular unmasking with vertical interocular disparities. Subjects reported about the presence of Gabor signals in fields of two-dimensional broadband Gaussian noise surrounded by a frame of uniform noise. They saw these stimuli through a stereoscope; in all cases, the right-eye noise field was vertically displaced relative to the left one in either an upward or a downward direction, by up to 67.6'. In one condition, the right-eye signal was displaced by an amount equal to that of the noise, so that no opportunities for binocular unmasking existed; in the other, it appeared in exactly corresponding locations in the two fields--here, binocular disparities could be used to unmask the signal. Enhanced signal detectability, by up to 12.7 dB, was observed in the latter case for both directions of displacement, but only for displacements of 13.52' and only when the signal's orientation was horizontal. We argue that these effects result from the summation of monocular inputs carried out by linear binocular mechanisms.     

On using isoluminant stimuli to separate magno- and parvocellular responses in psychophysical experiments—A few words of caution

Isoluminant (or equiluminant) color stimuli (i.e., those that contain variations only in chromaticity) have been employed in attempts to separate magno- and parvocellular responses in psychophysical and noninvasive electrophysiological experiments. The justification for this has been the assumption that magnocellular cells, unlike parvocellular neurons, do not respond to stimuli varying only in hue. However, several problems are associated with this notion: (1) under many conditions, magnocellular neurons are not fully silenced at isoluminance, and (2) in many circumstances, parvocellular responses are substantially reduced at isoluminance. To rely upon isoluminant stimuli to “bias” stimuli toward the parvocellular system also faces obstacles. Therefore, caution is required when attempting to use isoluminant color to separate magno- and parvocellular responses.     

The minimum contrast requirements for stereopsis.

A number of researchers have compared the contrast requirements for stereopsis with those for detection of the stereoscopic stimulus, but they have generally failed to allow for the fact that stereopsis requires a detectable stimulus in both eyes at the same time. It is argued that the most appropriate detection threshold for this comparison is that for simultaneous monocular detection (SMD) of the stereoscopic half images. Experiments in which this comparison threshold has been used are summarised and the hypothesis generated that, on using stimuli that are localised in both space and spatial frequency (e.g. Gabor patches or differences of Gaussians), a range of disparities can always be found over which contrast thresholds for depth identification are less than or equal to this SMD threshold (the SMD hypothesis). It is argued that the success of this hypothesis in describing data obtained with these stimuli is consistent with the notions of labelled lines for disparity sign and the size--disparity correlation. Last, experiments are reported in which contrast thresholds for stereoscopic depth identification (front/back) were measured with interocular differences in contrast. The data obtained are consistent with the presence of both inhibitory and excitatory interactions between the eyes when unequal monocular contrasts are presented. The implications of these results and the SMD hypothesis for theories of stereopsis and binocular function are discussed.     

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.     

Effects of direction and magnitude of horizontal disparities on binocular unmasking

Conditions under which binocular unmasking (BU), as an analogue of binaural unmasking, occurs have been explored. Observers were to detect through a stereoscope a Gabor signal in patches of two-dimensional broadband gaussian noise surrounded by a frame of uniform noise. The right-eye gaussian field was displaced relative to the left eye so that it appeared either in front of or behind the frame. Performance when signal disparity was equal to that of the noise--a condition functionally equivalent to monocular processing--was compared to that obtained when signal disparity was zero--a case in which BU should occur. Enhanced signal detectability of up to 12 dB and of nearly constant magnitude was observed in the latter condition when uncrossed disparities of up to 67.60 min visual angle and display durations of 1 s were employed. Signal detectability declined appreciably with increasing disparity (both crossed and uncrossed) when display duration was reduced to 90 ms, thus preventing the occurrence of compensatory vergence eye movements. It is suggested that BU effects may result from a process of linear summation of monocular inputs.     

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.     

A neural theory of binocular rivalry

When the two eyes view discrepant monocular stimuli, stable single vision gives way to alternating periods of monocular dominance; this is the well-known but little understood phenomenon of binocular rivalry. This article develops a neural theory of binocular rivalry that treats the phenomenon as the default outcome when binocular correspondence cannot be established. The theory posits the existence of monocular and binocular neurons arrayed within a functional processing module, with monocular neurons playing a crucial role in signaling the stimulus conditions instigating rivalry and generating inhibitory signals to implement suppression. Suppression is conceived as a local process happening in parallel over the entire cortical representation of the binocular visual field. The strength of inhibition causing suppression is related to the size of the pool of monocular neurons innervated by the suppressed eye, and the duration of a suppression phase is attributed to the strength of excitation generated by the suppressed stimulus. The theory is compared with three other contemporary theories of binocular rivalry. The article closes with a discussion of some of the unresolved problems related to the theory.     

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.     

An oblique effect of chromatic gratings measured by color-mixture thresholds

Contrast sensitivity is lower for obliquely oriented achromatic gratings than for vertical or horizontal gratings at high spatial and low temporal frequencies. Although this response is suggestive of mediation by P-pathway cortical correlates, no clear sensory (i.e. class 1) oblique effect has been demonstrated with isoluminant chromatic stimuli. In the present experiment, a two-alternative forced-choice detection task was used to measure observers' sensitivity to spatiotemporal sinusoids varying in orientation and color contrast. A maximum-likelihood method fit ellipses to the thresholds, with the length of each ellipse taken as a measure of chromatic contrast sensitivity at isoluminance, and the width as luminance contrast threshold. A chromatic oblique effect was observed at about 3 cycles deg-1 suggesting an orientation bias within the cortical stream conveying P-cell activity.     

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 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.     

Revisiting preview search at isoluminance: new onsets are not necessary for the preview advantage

It has been argued that search performance under preview conditions relies on automatic capture by luminance onsets (Donk & Theeuwes, 2001). We present three experiments in which preview search was examined with both isoluminant and nonisoluminant items (e.g., as defined by luminance onsets). Experiment 1 provided evidence against the automatic capture of attention by onsets. Search benefited when onset previews were followed by new onset stimuli, as compared with a full-set baseline matched for the number of new onsets but in which half the distractors appeared simultaneously at isoluminance. Furthermore, both Experiments 1 and 2 established a preview advantage when isoluminant targets followed onset previews, when compared with appropriate full-set baselines. Experiment 3 replicated this result, while showing that the preview benefit was disrupted by dual-task interference. The data indicate that new onsets are not necessary to generate a preview advantage in search. We discuss the data in terms of search's benefiting from active inhibition of old onset-defined stimuli.     

Hemiretinal differences in face recognition: accuracy versus reaction time

A face-recognition task involving monocular presentation of laterally displaced stimuli yielded a nasal hemiretinal advantage for reaction time for correct identifications, but a temporal hemiretinal advantage for accuracy (d'). These hemiretinal effects, in conjunction with eye dominance, could in principle distort or obscure interpretations of hemispheric processing differences obtained with binocular stimulation.     

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.