Interocular interaction of contrast and luminance signals in human primary visual cortex

Chadnova, Eva; Reynaud, Alexandre; Clavagnier, Simon; Baker, Daniel H.; Baillet, Sylvain; Hess, Robert F.

doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.10.035

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 41 publications

(57 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two recent MEG (Chadnova et al, 2017(Chadnova et al, , 2018 and one EEG (Busse et al, 2009) source-imaging studies in humans used a two-frequency dichoptic noisemasking paradigm and varied contrast and luminance levels in the two eyes. They demonstrated interocular suppression in V1, where dichoptic masking decreased responses by ϳ50% in participants with normal binocular vision (Chadnova et al, 2018). It is not clear how such binocular contrast interaction propagates from V1 to extra-striate visual cortex.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Here we used source-imaged steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEPs) with stimuli in each of the two eyes tagged with distinct temporal frequencies (Hou et al, 2016). Our approach was similar to Chadnova et al (2017Chadnova et al ( , 2018, but we used a pair of parallel sinusoidal gratings instead of a noise-masking paradigm. Parallel gratings evoke stronger masking/suppression of the harmonic responses to each eye's stimulus frequency (referred to as self-terms, nF1 and nF2) than orthogonal gratings (Morrone and Burr, 1986;Burr and Morrone, 1987;Brown et al, 1999;Candy et al, 2001;Moradi and Heeger, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is true for the neurons in cat's visual cortex as well (Ohzawa and Freeman, 1986;DeAngelis et al, 1992). As self-term responses to each eye's input are reduced by simultaneously presenting stimuli to the other eye (Brown et al, 1999;Chadnova et al, 2017;Chadnova et al, 2018), we investigated dynamic interocular suppression in various cortical areas simultaneously by using different combinations of contrasts in the two eyes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, to characterize these two forms of binocular interactions (interocular suppression and interaction revealed by self and IM terms, respectively) and their relation to contrast gain control, we fit both self and IM data simultaneously to a family of divisive gain control models (Tsai et al, 2012) across various cortical areas. Previous masking SSVEP studies (Baker and Wade, 2017;Chadnova et al, 2017Chadnova et al, , 2018 used a static contrast input in gain control models, which limited their ability to deal with temporal dynamics and the range of input contrasts in our study. The Tsai et al (2012) model includes a time-varying contrast input and can explain the full range of frequency-domain responses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Contrast Normalization Accounts for Binocular Interactions in Human Striate and Extra-striate Visual Cortex

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During binocular viewing, visual inputs from the two eyes interact at the level of visual cortex. Here we studied binocular interactions in human visual cortex, including both sexes, using source-imaged steady-state visual evoked potentials over a wide range of relative contrast between two eyes. The ROIs included areas V1, V3a, hV4, hMT ϩ , and lateral occipital cortex. Dichoptic parallel grating stimuli in each eye modulated at distinct temporal frequencies allowed us to quantify spectral components associated with the individual stimuli from monocular inputs (self-terms) and responses due to interaction between the inputs from the two eyes (intermodulation [IM] terms). Data with self-terms revealed an interocular suppression effect, in which the responses to the stimulus in one eye were reduced when a stimulus was presented simultaneously to the other eye. The suppression magnitude varied depending on visual area, and the relative contrast between the two eyes. Suppression was strongest in V1 and V3a (50% reduction) and was least in lateral occipital cortex (20% reduction). Data with IM terms revealed another form of binocular interaction, compared with self-terms. IM response was strongest at V1 and was least in hV4. Fits of a family of divisive gain control models to both self-and IM-term responses within each cortical area indicated that both forms of binocular interaction shared a common gain control nonlinearity. However, our model fits revealed different patterns of binocular interaction along the cortical hierarchy, particularly in terms of excitatory and suppressive contributions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Contrast Normalization Accounts for Binocular Interactions in Human Striate and Extra-striate Visual Cortex

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The patching effect has been demonstrated with psychophysical, electrophysiological [8,9] and neuroimaging [10,11,12] measurements. The change in sensory eye dominance as a result of short-term patching seems to be reciprocal between the eyes: the contrast gain of the patched eye is enhanced and that of the non-patched eye weakened [13,2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ocular Dominance Plasticity: Measurement Reliability and Variability

Min

Gong

Baldwin

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last decade, studies have shown that short-term monocular deprivation strengthens the deprived eye’s contribution to binocular vision. However, the magnitude of the change in eye dominance after monocular deprivation (i.e., the patching effect) has been found to be different between for different methods and within the same method. There are three possible explanations for the discrepancy. First, the mechanisms underlying the patching effect that are probed by different measurement tasks might exist at different neural sites. Second, test-retest variability in the measurement might have led to inconsistencies, even within the same method. Third, the patching effect itself in the same subject might fluctuate across separate days or experimental sessions. To explore these possibilities, we assessed the test-retest reliability of the three most commonly used tasks (binocular rivalry, binocular combination, and dichoptic masking) and the repeatability of the shift in eye dominance after short-term monocular deprivation for each of the task. Two variations for binocular phase combination were used, at one and many contrasts of the stimuli. Also, two variations of the dichoptic masking task was tested, in which the orientation of the mask grating was either horizontal or vertical. This makes five different measurement methods in all. We hope to resolve some of the inconsistencies reported in the literature concerning this form of visual plasticity. In this study, we also aim to recommend a measurement method that will allow us to better understand its physiological basis and the underpinning of visual disorders.

show abstract