Reversed Depth in Anticorrelated Random-Dot Stereograms and the Central-Peripheral Difference in Visual Inference

Li, Zhaoping; Ackermann, Joëlle

doi:10.1177/0301006618758571

Cited by 20 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The fact that human observers typically cannot see reversed depth in a contrast-reversed RDS is consistent with the idea that V1 is not a site of consciousness (Crick and Koch, 1995). However, Zhaoping and Ackermann (2018) showed that the reversed depth can be perceived in the peripheral visual field, as predicted by the central-peripheral dichotomy (CPD) which was originally proposed on the basis of computational and psychophysical arguments (Zhaoping, 2017). CPD considers the top-down feedback from higher to lower visual areas (such as V1) to aid visual recognition, particularly in challenging situations such as noisy, ambiguous, or partially occluded visual inputs.…”

supporting

confidence: 77%

Contrast-reversed binocular dot-pairs in random-dot stereograms for depth perception in central visual field: Probing the dynamics of feedforward-feedback processes in visual inference

2021

Vision Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a random-dot stereogram (RDS), the spatial disparities between the interocularly corresponding black and white random dots determine the depths of object surfaces. If a black dot in one monocular image corresponds to a white dot in the other, disparity-tuned neurons in primary visual cortex (V1) respond as if their preferred disparities become non-preferred and vice versa, reversing the disparity sign reported to higher visual areas. Reversed depth is perceptible in the peripheral but not the central visual field. This study demonstrates that, in central vision, adding contrast-reversed dots to a noisy RDS (containing the normal contrast-matched dots) can augment or degrade depth perception. Augmentation occurs when the reversed depth signals are congruent with the normal depth signals to report the same disparity sign, and occurs regardless of the viewing duration. Degradation occurs when the reversed and normal depth signals are incongruent with each other and when the RDS is viewed briefly. These phenomena reflect the Feedforward-Feedback-Verify-and-reWeight (FFVW) process for visual inference in central vision, and are consistent with the central-peripheral dichotomy that central vision has a stronger top-down feedback from higher to lower brain areas to disambiguate noisy and ambiguous inputs from V1. When a RDS is viewed too briefly for feedback, augmentation and degradation work by adding the reversed depth signals from contrast-reversed dots to the feedforward, normal, depth signals. With a sufficiently long viewing duration, the feedback vetoes incongruent reversed depth signals and amends or completes the imperfect, but congruent, reversed depth signals by analysis-by-synthesis computation.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 77%

Contrast-reversed binocular dot-pairs in random-dot stereograms for depth perception in central visual field: Probing the dynamics of feedforward-feedback processes in visual inference

2021

Vision Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These eccentricity biases suggest a functional specialization of the foveal and peripheral visual fields that might be related to the role of foveal feedback. A more important role of feedback signals for foveal than for peripheral vision has also been proposed by Zhaoping (2019) , based on differences in the processing of disparity in the fovea and the periphery ( Zhaoping, 2017 ; Zhaoping & Ackermann, 2018 ).…”

Section: Foveal-peripheral Interactions During Fixationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of interactions between peripheral and foveal vision

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual processing varies dramatically across the visual field. These differences start in the retina and continue all the way to the visual cortex. Despite these differences in processing, the perceptual experience of humans is remarkably stable and continuous across the visual field. Research in the last decade has shown that processing in peripheral and foveal vision is not independent, but is more directly connected than previously thought. We address three core questions on how peripheral and foveal vision interact, and review recent findings on potentially related phenomena that could provide answers to these questions. First, how is the processing of peripheral and foveal signals related during fixation? Peripheral signals seem to be processed in foveal retinotopic areas to facilitate peripheral object recognition, and foveal information seems to be extrapolated toward the periphery to generate a homogeneous representation of the environment. Second, how are peripheral and foveal signals re-calibrated? Transsaccadic changes in object features lead to a reduction in the discrepancy between peripheral and foveal appearance. Third, how is peripheral and foveal information stitched together across saccades? Peripheral and foveal signals are integrated across saccadic eye movements to average percepts and to reduce uncertainty. Together, these findings illustrate that peripheral and foveal processing are closely connected, mastering the compromise between a large peripheral visual field and high resolution at the fovea. Brief overview of differences between peripheral and foveal vision Although the human eye is often compared to a photographic camera, processing across the visual field is not homogeneous like in a camera film or a digital sensor. First, there are gaps in sensory information due to several anatomical properties of the eye: (a) there are no photoreceptors in the optic disc, where the axons of the retinal ganglion cells exit the eyeball: this leads to a blind spot (Mariotte, 1740, cited after Ferree & Rand, 1912; Grzybowski & Aydin, 2007). (b) The center of the retina contains only cone, but no rod photoreceptors (Schultze, 1866; Oesterberg, 1935; Curcio, Sloan, Kalina, & Hendrickson, 1990), leading to a central scotoma under dark illumination conditions. (c) Because photoreceptors are located on the back side of the retina, away from the light, blood vessels cast shadows on them (Purkinje, 1819; von Helmholtz, 1867; Evans, 1927; Adams & Horton, 2002). The second striking difference to a photographic camera is that the processing of visual signals varies quite dramatically across the visual field. Here, an important distinction arises between the center of the visual field, called the fovea, and the rest, called the periphery. 1 We only briefly highlight some of the key differences in processing and perception between the fovea and the periphery because these have been reviewed in detail elsewhere

show abstract

“…image elements having opposite contrast between the two eyes, the neurons' RFs are presented with local matches that do not correspond to globally coherent matches. Human observers, indeed, perceive stereo depth with cRDS, but generally do not with aRDS (Julesz, 1971;Cogan et al, 1993Cogan et al, , 1995Cumming et al, 1998;Zhaoping and Ackermann, 2018). In primates, V1 neurons maintain disparity selectivity to aRDS despite an inversion of the tuning profile (Cumming and Parker, 1997).…”

Section: Responses To Binocular Correlation and Anticorrelation Across Visual Cortexmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disparity Sensitivity and Binocular Integration in Mouse Visual Cortex Areas

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Binocular disparity, the difference between the two eyes' images, is a powerful cue to generate the three-dimensional depth percept known as stereopsis. In primates, binocular disparity is processed in multiple areas of the visual cortex, with distinct contributions of higher areas to specific aspects of depth perception. Mice, too, can perceive stereoscopic depth, and neurons in primary visual cortex (V1) and higher-order, lateromedial (LM) and rostrolateral (RL) areas were found to be sensitive to binocular disparity. A detailed characterization of disparity tuning properties across mouse visual areas is lacking, however, and acquiring such data might help clarifying the role of higher areas for disparity processing and establishing putative functional correspondences to primate areas. We used two-photon calcium imaging to characterize the disparity tuning properties of neurons in mouse visual areas V1, LM, and RL in response to dichoptically presented binocular gratings, as well as correlated and anticorrelated random dot stereograms (RDS). In all three areas, many neurons were tuned to disparity, showing strong response facilitation or suppression at optimal or null disparity, respectively. This was even the case in neurons classified as monocular by conventional ocular dominance measurements. Spatial clustering of similarly tuned neurons was observed at a scale of about 10 μm. Finally, we probed neurons' sensitivity to true stereo correspondence by comparing responses to correlated and anticorrelated RDS. Area LM, akin to primate ventral visual stream areas, showed higher selectivity for correlated stimuli and reduced anticorrelated responses, indicating higher-level disparity processing in LM compared to V1 and RL.

show abstract

Reversed Depth in Anticorrelated Random-Dot Stereograms and the Central-Peripheral Difference in Visual Inference

Cited by 20 publications

References 30 publications

Contrast-reversed binocular dot-pairs in random-dot stereograms for depth perception in central visual field: Probing the dynamics of feedforward-feedback processes in visual inference

Contrast-reversed binocular dot-pairs in random-dot stereograms for depth perception in central visual field: Probing the dynamics of feedforward-feedback processes in visual inference

A review of interactions between peripheral and foveal vision

Disparity Sensitivity and Binocular Integration in Mouse Visual Cortex Areas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About