Contrast and Phase Combination in Binocular Vision

Huang, Chang-Bing; Zhou, Jiawei; Zhou, Yifeng; Lü, Zhong-Lin

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015075

Cited by 79 publications

(125 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

113

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It's an interesting prediction, because for luminance gratings it certainly does not hold. At contrasts above about 20%, monocular, binocular and antiphase luminance gratings all appear to have the same contrast (Baker, Meese, & Georgeson, 2007;Baker, Wallis, Georgeson, & Meese, 2012;Huang, Zhou, Zhou, & Lu, 2010). The difference in prediction arises very simply, because monocular channels in our CM model have a contrast-weighted gain of 0.5 (when the carrier is in both eyes; eqn.…”

Section: A Predictionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Binocular functional architecture for detection of contrast-modulated gratings

Georgeson

Schofield

2016

Vision Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Running head: Binocular summation for contrast modulationCorresponding author: m.a.georgeson@aston.ac.uk Highlights• Detection of contrast modulation (CM) shows full binocular summation • Similarity or dissimilarity of the carriers has no effect on summation • Out-of-phase envelopes don't cancel, but are a bit less detectable than monocular ones • Model: monocular envelope extraction, then contrast-weighted binocular summation • Monocular CM outputs in parallel with binocular ones; largest response wins AbstractCombination of signals from the two eyes is the gateway to stereo vision. To gain insight into binocular signal processing, we studied binocular summation for luminance-modulated gratings (L or LM) and contrast-modulated gratings (CM). We measured 2AFC detection thresholds for a signal grating (0.75 c/deg, 216msec) shown to one eye, both eyes, or both eyes out-of-phase. For LM and CM, the carrier noise was in both eyes, even when the signal was monocular. Mean binocular thresholds for luminance gratings (L) were 5.4dB better than monocular thresholdsclose to perfect linear summation (6dB). For LM and CM the binocular advantage was again 5-6dB, even when the carrier noise was uncorrelated, anti-correlated, or at orthogonal orientations in the two eyes. Binocular combination for CM probably arises from summation of envelope responses, and not from summation of these conflicting carrier patterns. Antiphase signals produced no binocular advantage, but thresholds were about 1-3dB higher than monocular ones. This is not consistent with simple linear summation, which should give complete cancellation and unmeasurably high thresholds. We propose a three-channel model in which noisy monocular responses to the envelope are binocularly combined in a contrast-weighted sum, but also remain separately available to perception via a max operator. Vision selects the largest of the three responses. With in-phase gratings the binocular channel dominates, but antiphase gratings cancel in the binocular channel and the monocular channels mediate detection. The small antiphase disadvantage might be explained by a subtle influence of background responses on binocular and monocular detection.3

show abstract

Section: A Predictionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Binocular functional architecture for detection of contrast-modulated gratings

Georgeson

Schofield

2016

Vision Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One test which poses no cyclopean conflict presents observers with dichoptic sine-wave gratings that differ only in phase and contrast (Figure 1, test #4). Observers are asked to indicate the location of the middle dark stripe of the phase-shifted grating that results from binocular summation (Ding and Sperling 2006, Huang, Zhou et al 2009, Huang, Zhou et al 2010, Zhou, Thompson et al 2013, Kwon, Lu et al 2014. Reported position allows one to determine the interocular 95 contrast difference that supports equal contribution from each eye, and it is this contrast difference that quantifies "binocular balance".…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of tests for quantifying sensory eye dominance

Bossi

Hamm

Dahlmann‐Noor

et al. 2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Clinicians rely heavily on stereoacuity to measure binocular visual function, but stereovision represents only one aspect of binocularity. Lab-based tests of sensory eye dominance (SED) are commonplace, but have not been translated to wider clinical practice. Here we compare several 15 methods of quantifying SED in a format suitable for clinical use. Methods We tested 30 participants with ostensibly normal vision on 8 tests. Seven tests (#1-7) were designed to quantify SED in the form of an interocular balance-point (BP). In tests #1-6, we estimated a contrast-BP, the interocular difference in contrast required for observers to be equally likely to base their judgement on either eye, whereas in test #7 we measured binocular rivalry (interocular ratio of sensory dominance 20 duration). We compare test-retest reliability (intra-observer consistency) and test-validity (interobserver discriminatory power) and compare BP to stereoacuity (test #8). Results The test that best preserved inter-observer differences in contrast balance while maintaining good test-retest reliability was a polarity judgement using superimposed opposite-contrast polarity same-identity optotypes. Conclusions A reliable and valid measure of SED can be obtained rapidly (20 trials) using 25 a simple contrast-polarity judgement. Tests that use polarity-rivalrous stimuli elicit more reliable judgments than those that do not. Significance StatementAlthough sensory eye dominance is central to understanding normal and disordered binocular vision, there is currently no consensus as to the best way to measure it. Here we compare several 30 candidate measures of sensory eye dominance and conclude that a reliable measure of SED can be achieved rapidly using a judgement of stimulus contrast-polarity.

show abstract

“…18,45 For the first-order condition, it is well documented that binocular combination of first-order gratings is contrast-gain controlled. 9,11,17,19,35,[46][47][48] Recently, we have shown that second-order binocular combination could also be explained by the contrast-gain control theory. 37 Thus for normal adults, since the carrier contrasts are the same in the two eyes, they will have equal weight in the binocular summation of second-order signals.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Deficient Binocular Combination of Second-Order Stimuli in Amblyopia

Zhou

Liu

Feng

et al. 2016

Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citation: Zhou J, Liu R, Feng L, Zhou Y, Hess RF. Deficient binocular combination of second-order stimuli in amblyopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016;57:163557: -164257: . DOI:10.1167 PURPOSE. Sensory imbalances in humans with amblyopia have been well documented using luminance-modulated (first-order) stimuli. However, little is known regarding whether there is a deficient binocular combination in amblyopes for stimuli defined by modulations in contrast (second-order stimuli). To address this, we asked two questions: Does a sensory imbalance also exist in the binocular combination of second-order stimuli, and if so, is it more severe than that expected on the basis of the imbalance for first-order stimuli?METHODS. The sensory imbalances of 14 adult amblyopes (mean age: 30.5 6 11.5 years; 5 with strabismus and 9 without) were measured using a dichoptic phase combination task. Three types of second-order dichoptic stimulus pairs were used in the study, where the carriers in the two eyes were either correlated, anticorrelated, or uncorrelated. Results were compared with those obtained using first-order stimuli in all observers. RESULTS.We found that second-order binocular combination in amblyopes was not affected by the interocular carrier correlations. The amblyopic eye's contribution to the binocularly fused percept was much less than that of the nonamblyopic eye. The resulting sensory imbalance in binocular combination for second-order images was comparable to that for first-order images in 8 of the observers but was more severe in the other 6 amblyopes.CONCLUSIONS. These results indicate that amblyopia does not disrupt the normal architecture of binocular combination for second-order signals; however, there is an additional deficit in binocular combination of second-order image in some amblyopes that cannot be fully accounted for by the known first-order sensory imbalance.Keywords: amblyopia, suppression, second-order, contrast-gain control, sensory imbalance A mblyopia is a common disorder caused by abnormal visual development during childhood. [1][2][3] This makes amblyopia a unique model for investigating what factors are critical in early development. Normally, people with amblyopia have reduced visual function when viewing stimuli with their amblyopic eye, even when the appropriate optical correction is used. These deficits can include reduced visual acuity, reduced contrast sensitivity function, and spatiotemporal distortions. 3-8 Recently, imbalances in binocular function have been put forward as a possible primary factor in the disorder. [9][10][11] This has led to new binocular training therapies. 12-16 Such a sensory imbalance has been demonstrated in several paradigms, for example, local phase combination, 9,17 global motion coherence, 18 and global orientation coherence. 19 Even at low spatial frequencies where the two eyes have equivalent monocular visual thresholds, the amblyopic eye still makes less of a contribution to the binocularly fused percept than the nonamblyopic eye. 9,11,[17][18][19]...

show abstract

Contrast and Phase Combination in Binocular Vision

Cited by 79 publications

References 48 publications

Binocular functional architecture for detection of contrast-modulated gratings

Binocular functional architecture for detection of contrast-modulated gratings

A comparison of tests for quantifying sensory eye dominance

Deficient Binocular Combination of Second-Order Stimuli in Amblyopia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About