Purpose. Migraine is a disabling condition with underlying neuronal mechanisms that remain elusive. Migraineurs experience hyperresponsivity to visual stimuli and frequently experience visual disturbances. In the present study, the equivalent input noise approach was used to reveal abnormalities of visual processing and to isolate factors responsible for any such deficits. This approach partitions visual sensitivity into components that represent the efficiency of using the available stimulus information, the background internal noise due to irregular neuronal fluctuations, and the neuronal noise induced by the external stimulation. Methods. Ten migraine with aura, ten migraine without aura, and ten age-matched headache-free subjects participated. Performance in detecting luminance targets embedded in visual noise, resembling grainy photographs, was measured at various noise levels. Results. Contrast thresholds of the three subject groups were similar in the absence of noise, but both migraine groups performed worse in the presence of high noise levels, with performance of migraineurs with aura significantly poorer (P < 0.05) than that of control subjects. Data were fitted with a perceptual template model that showed that the model parameter determining the internal (neuronal) noise triggered by the external (stimulus) noise was significantly higher (P < 0.001) in both migraine groups than in the non-migraineur group. Migraineurs without aura also showed a significant (P < 0.05) though weak reduction of sampling efficiency (0.12 +/- 0.02) compared with control subjects (0.17 +/- 0.02). Conclusions. The results revealed substantial external noise-exclusion deficits in migraine with aura and a minor impairment of noise exclusion in migraine without aura. Migraineurs appeared prone to abnormally high variability of neuronal activity. This result provides a promising explanation of observed visual deficits in migraine.

The perception of a stimulus can be impaired when presented in the context of a masking pattern. To determine the timing and the nature of face processing, the effect of various masks on the discriminability of faces was investigated. Results reveal a strong configural effect: the magnitude of masking depends on the similarity between mask and target. Masking is absent for non-face masks (noise, houses), modest for scrambled and inverted faces and strongest for upright faces, even when they differ in size, gender or viewpoint from the targets. This suggests an extra-striate location for the masking (possibly FFA). Reduced but significant masking for isolated face parts (internal features or head shape) is consistent with holistic computations in face perception. The duration over which a face mask can impair face discrimination (130 ms) is markedly longer than previously assumed and is sufficient for iterative and feedback computations to be part of face processing.

This study aimed to develop a clinical test of face perception which is applicable to a wide range of patients and can capture normal variability. The Caledonian face test utilises synthetic faces which combine simplicity with sufficient realism to permit individual identification. Face discrimination thresholds (i.e. minimum difference between faces required for accurate discrimination) were determined in an "odd-one-out" task. The difference between faces was controlled by an adaptive QUEST procedure. A broad range of face discrimination sensitivity was determined from a group (N=52) of young adults (mean 5.75%; SD 1.18; range 3.33-8.84%). The test is fast (3-4 min), repeatable (test-re-test r(2)=0.795) and demonstrates a significant inversion effect. The potential to identify impairments of face discrimination was evaluated by testing LM who reported a lifelong difficulty with face perception. While LM's impairment for two established face tests was close to the criterion for significance (Z-scores of -2.20 and -2.27) for the Caledonian face test, her Z-score was -7.26, implying a more than threefold higher sensitivity. The new face test provides a quantifiable and repeatable assessment of face discrimination ability. The enhanced sensitivity suggests that the Caledonian face test may be capable of detecting more subtle impairments of face perception than available tests.

Humans manipulate objects chiefly within their lower visual field, a consequence of upright posture and the anatomical position of hands and arms.This study tested the hypothesis of enhanced sensitivity to a range of stimuli within the lower visual field. Following current models of hierarchical processing within the ventral steam, discrimination sensitivity was measured for orientation, curvature, shape (radial frequency patterns), and faces at various para-central locations (horizontal, vertical, and main diagonal meridians) and eccentricities (5° and 10°). Peripheral sensitivity was isotropic for orientation and curvature. By contrast, observers were significantly better at discriminating shapes throughout the lower visual field compared to elsewhere. For faces, however, peak sensitivity was found in the left visual field, corresponding to the right hemispheric localization of human face processing. Presenting head outlines without any internal features (e.g., eyes, mouth) recovered the lower visual field advantage found for simple shapes. A lower visual field preference for the shape of an object, which is absent for more localized information (orientation and curvature) but also for more complex objects (faces), is inconsistent with a strictly feed-forward model and poses a challenge for multistage models of object perception. The distinct lower visual field preference for contour shapes is, however, consistent with an asymmetry at intermediate stages of visual processing, which may play a key role in representing object characteristics that are particularly relevant to visually guided actions.

Faces are highly complex stimuli that contain a host of information. Such complexity poses the following questions: (a) do observers exhibit preferences for specific information? (b) how does sensitivity to individual face parts compare? These questions were addressed by quantifying sensitivity to different face features.Discrimination thresholds were determined for synthetic faces under the following conditions: (i) 'full face': all face features visible; (ii) 'isolated feature': single feature presented in isolation; (iii) 'embedded feature': all features visible, but only one feature modified.Mean threshold elevations for isolated features, relative to full-faces, were 0.84x, 1.08, 2.12, 3.34, 4.07 and 4.47 for head-shape, hairline, nose, mouth, eyes and eyebrows respectively.Hence, when two full faces can be discriminated at threshold, the difference between the eyes is about four times less than what is required when discriminating between isolated eyes. In all cases, sensitivity was higher when features were presented in isolation than when they were embedded within a face context (threshold elevations of 0.94x, 1.74, 2.67, 2.90, 5.94 and 9.94).This reveals a specific pattern of sensitivity to face information. Observers are between two and four times more sensitive to external than internal features. The pattern for internal features (higher sensitivity for the nose, compared to mouth, eyes and eyebrows) is consistent with lower sensitivity for those parts affected by facial dynamics (e.g. facial expressions). That isolated features are easier to discriminate than embedded features supports a holistic face processing mechanism which impedes extraction of information about individual features from full faces.

No abstract

Enhanced excitation of noise-activated neurons in migraineurs would produce stronger rebound activity and longer after-image durations, while weakened inhibitory mechanisms would diminish the rebound activity and shorten the after-image durations compared to control subjects. The results suggest that cortical inhibitory mechanisms might be impaired in migraineurs with and without aura.

Patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) experience difficulty with discriminating between faces. We aimed to use a new clinical test to quantify the impact of AMD on face perception and to determine the specific aspects that are affected. METHODS. The Caledonian face test uses an adaptive procedure to measure face discrimination thresholds: the minimum difference required between faces for reliable discrimination. Discrimination thresholds were measured for full-faces, external features (headshape and hairline), internal features (nose, mouth, eyes, and eyebrows) and shapes (non-face task). Participants were 20 patients with dry AMD (logMAR VA = 0.14 to 0.62), 20 patients with wet AMD (0.10 to 0.60), and 20 age-matched control subjects (−0.18 to +0.06). RESULTS. Relative to controls, full-face discrimination thresholds were, on average, 1.76 and 1.73 times poorer in participants with dry and wet AMD, respectively. AMD also reduced sensitivity to face features, but discrimination of the internal, relative to external, features was disproportionately impaired. Both distance VA and contrast sensitivity were significant independent predictors of full-face discrimination thresholds (R 2 = 0.66). Sensitivity to full-faces declined by a factor of approximately 1.19 per 0.1 logMAR reduction in VA. CONCLUSIONS. Both dry and wet AMD significantly reduce sensitivity to full-faces and their component parts to similar extents. Distance VA and contrast sensitivity are closely associated with face discrimination sensitivity. These results quantify the extent of sensitivity impairment in patients with AMD and predict particular difficulty in everyday tasks that rely on internal feature information, including recognition of familiar faces and facial expressions.