Cross-Orientation Suppression: Monoptic and Dichoptic Mechanisms Are Different

Li, Baowang; Peterson, Matthew R.; Thompson, Jeffrey K.; Duong, Thang; Freeman, Ray

doi:10.1152/jn.00203.2005

Cited by 53 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 51 publications

(30 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Neural activity in visual cortex, measured with single-cell electrophysiology, exhibits rivalry-like alternations (80,81), and neural responses in visual cortex also exhibit interocular suppression (82,83). However, some of these experiments were performed with anesthetized animals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attention model of binocular rivalry

Rankin

Rinzel

et al. 2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When the corresponding retinal locations in the two eyes are presented with incompatible images, a stable percept gives way to perceptual alternations in which the two images compete for perceptual dominance. As perceptual experience evolves dynamically under constant external inputs, binocular rivalry has been used for studying intrinsic cortical computations and for understanding how the brain regulates competing inputs. Converging behavioral and EEG results have shown that binocular rivalry and attention are intertwined: binocular rivalry ceases when attention is diverted away from the rivalry stimuli. In addition, the competing image in one eye suppresses the target in the other eye through a pattern of gain changes similar to those induced by attention. These results require a revision of the current computational theories of binocular rivalry, in which the role of attention is ignored. Here, we provide a computational model of binocular rivalry. In the model, competition between two images in rivalry is driven by both attentional modulation and mutual inhibition, which have distinct selectivity (feature vs. eye of origin) and dynamics (relatively slow vs. relatively fast). The proposed model explains a wide range of phenomena reported in rivalry, including the three hallmarks: (i) binocular rivalry requires attention; (ii) various perceptual states emerge when the two images are swapped between the eyes multiple times per second; (iii) the dominance duration as a function of input strength follows Levelt's propositions. With a bifurcation analysis, we identified the parameter space in which the model's behavior was consistent with experimental results.B inocular rivalry is a visual phenomenon in which perception alternates between incompatible monocular images presented to the two eyes. During binocular rivalry, perceptual experience evolves dynamically while the external inputs are held constant. Binocular rivalry thereby provides an opportunity to gain insights about the intrinsic cortical computations underlying visual perception (1, 2).In conventional models of binocular rivalry, the competition between two percepts has been characterized as mutual inhibition between two populations of neurons selective for each of the two stimuli (3-11). Notwithstanding the differences in their details, these models consider the neural processing underlying binocular rivalry to be an automatic process. These models predict, therefore, that the dynamics of binocular rivalry are influenced mainly by bottom-up sensory inputs.Converging experimental evidence has shown, however, that binocular rivalry also depends on attention (for a review, see ref.12). First, EEG has been used to measure a neural correlate of the perceptual alternations during binocular rivalry when observers pay attention to the rival stimuli (13). However, this rivalry-induced modulation of the EEG signal is largely or entirely eliminated when attention is diverted away from the stimuli (14). Second, behavioral experiments comparing the perceptual cons...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attention model of binocular rivalry

Rankin

Rinzel

et al. 2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Models of suppressive contrast gain control have prompted a resurgence of interest in ocular interactions in psychophysics (Meese & Hess, 2004;Maehara & Goryo, 2005;Ding & Sperling, 2006;Meese et al, 2006;Tsuchiya et al, 2006;Medina et al, 2007;Baker et al, 2007aBaker et al, , 2007bWeiler et al, 2007), electrophysiology (Walker et al 1998;Truchard et al, 2000;Li et al, 2005;Sengpiel & Vorobyov, 2005), and functional imaging (Büchert et al, 2002). These studies have driven the development of binocular models of masking, where interocular suppression forms part of the divisive contrast gain control (Walker et al, 1998;Meese & Hess, 2004;Maehara & Goryo, 2005;Meese et al, 2006;Baker et al, 2007a).…”

Section: Gain Control and Ocular Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A common contrast pooling rule for suppression within and between the eyes

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent work has revealed multiple pathways for cross-orientation suppression in cat and human vision. In particular, ipsiocular and interocular pathways appear to assert their influence before binocular summation in human but have different (1) spatial tuning, (2) temporal dependencies, and (3) adaptation after-effects. Here we use mask components that fall outside the excitatory passband of the detecting mechanism to investigate the rules for pooling multiple mask components within these pathways. We measured psychophysical contrast masking functions for vertical 1 cycle/ deg sine-wave gratings in the presence of left or right oblique (645 deg) 3 cycles/deg mask gratings with contrast C%, or a plaid made from their sum, where each component (i) had contrast 0.5C i %. Masks and targets were presented to two eyes (binocular), one eye (monoptic), or different eyes (dichoptic). Binocular-masking functions superimposed when plotted against C, but in the monoptic and dichoptic conditions, the grating produced slightly more suppression than the plaid when C i $ 16%. We tested contrast gain control models involving two types of contrast combination on the denominator: (1) spatial pooling of the mask after a local nonlinearity (to calculate either root mean square contrast or energy) and (2) ''linear suppression' ' (Holmes & Meese, 2004, Journal of Vision 4, 1080-1089), involving the linear sum of the mask component contrasts. Monoptic and dichoptic masking were typically better fit by the spatial pooling models, but binocular masking was not: it demanded strict linear summation of the Michelson contrast across mask orientation. Another scheme, in which suppressive pooling followed compressive contrast responses to the mask components (e.g., oriented cortical cells), was ruled out by all of our data. We conclude that the different processes that underlie monoptic and dichoptic masking use the same type of contrast pooling within their respective suppressive fields, but the effects do not sum to predict the binocular case.

show abstract

“…The last two accounts are applicable only when the mask and test are presented to the same eye (monoptic presentation) and overlap in space and time. However, in cat at least, XOS is not a purely ipsiocular process because when an oriented grating and crossoriented mask are presented to different eyes (dichoptic presentation), suppression is evident in striate cells (Sengpiel et al, 1995;Walker et al, 1998;Li et al, 2005;Sengpiel and Vorobyov, 2005). Although interocular suppression has been found in the LGN (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychophysical evidence for two routes to suppression before binocular summation of signals in human vision

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Visual mechanisms in primary visual cortex are suppressed by the superposition of gratings perpendicular to their preferred orientations. A clear picture of this process is needed to (i) inform functional architecture of image-processing models, (ii) identify the pathways available to support binocular rivalry, and (iii) generally advance our understanding of early vision. Here we use monoptic sine-wave gratings and cross-orientation masking (XOM) to reveal two crossoriented suppressive pathways in humans, both of which occur before full binocular summation of signals. One is a within-eye (ipsiocular) pathway that is spatially broadband, immune to contrast adaptation and has a suppressive weight that tends to decrease with stimulus duration. The other pathway operates between the eyes (interocular), is spatially tuned, desensitizes with contrast adaptation and has a suppressive weight that increases with stimulus duration. When cross-oriented masks are presented to both eyes, masking is enhanced or diminished for conditions in which either ipsiocular or interocular pathways dominate masking, respectively. We propose that ipsiocular suppression precedes the influence of interocular suppression and tentatively associate the two effects with the lateral geniculate nucleus (or retina) and the visual cortex respectively. The interocular route is a good candidate for the initial pathway involved in binocular rivalry and predicts that interocular cross-orientation suppression should be found in cortical cells with predominantly ipsiocular drive.

show abstract

Cross-Orientation Suppression: Monoptic and Dichoptic Mechanisms Are Different

Cited by 53 publications

References 51 publications

Attention model of binocular rivalry

Attention model of binocular rivalry

A common contrast pooling rule for suppression within and between the eyes

Psychophysical evidence for two routes to suppression before binocular summation of signals in human vision

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About