Breaking camouflage: binocular disparity reduces contrast masking in natural images.

Visual overlay masking is typically studied with a mask and target located at the same depth plane. Masking is reduced when binocular disparity separates the target from the mask (G. Moraglia & B. Schneider, 1990). We replicate this finding for a broadband target masked by natural images and find the greatest masking (threshold elevation) when target and mask occupy the same depth plane. Masking was reduced equally whether the target appeared at a crossed or an uncrossed disparity. We measure the tuning of masking and determine the extent of the benefit afforded by disparity. Threshold elevation decreases monotonically with increasing disparity until ±8 arcmin. Two underlying components to the masking are evident; one accounts for around two-thirds of the masking and is independent of disparity. The second component is disparity-dependent and results in additional masking when there is zero disparity. Importantly, the reduction in masking with disparity cannot be explained by interocular decorrelation; we use a single-interval orientation discrimination task to exclude this possibility. We conclude that when the target and mask are presented at different depths they activate distinct populations of disparity-tuned neurons, resulting in less masking of the target.

[1]  K. R. Brooks,et al.  Quantitative perceived depth from sequential monocular decamouflage , 2006, Vision Research.

[2]  J. M. Foley,et al.  Human luminance pattern-vision mechanisms: masking experiments require a new model. , 1994, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[3]  D. Tolhurst,et al.  Amplitude spectra of natural images. , 1992, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[4]  P. König,et al.  Differences of monkey and human overt attention under natural conditions , 2006, Vision Research.

[5]  D. Burr,et al.  Functional implications of cross-orientation inhibition of cortical visual cells. I. Neurophysiological evidence , 1982, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[6]  Nicholas J. Priebe,et al.  Mechanisms underlying cross-orientation suppression in cat visual cortex , 2006, Nature Neuroscience.

[7]  B Schneider,et al.  Effects of Direction and Magnitude of Horizontal Disparities on Binocular Unmasking , 1990, Perception.

[8]  Christopher W. Tyler,et al.  Bit stealing: how to get 1786 or more gray levels from an 8-bit color monitor , 1992, Electronic Imaging.

[9]  John A. Greenwood,et al.  Pushing the limits of transparent-motion detection with binocular disparity , 2006, Vision Research.

[10]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[11]  A. B. Bonds,et al.  Temporal-frequency tuning of cross-orientation suppression in the cat striate cortex , 2001, Visual Neuroscience.

[12]  R. Freeman,et al.  Origins of cross-orientation suppression in the visual cortex. , 2006, Journal of neurophysiology.

[13]  J. M. Foley,et al.  Contrast masking in human vision. , 1980, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[14]  J. Movshon,et al.  Linearity and Normalization in Simple Cells of the Macaque Primary Visual Cortex , 1997, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[15]  L. Cormack,et al.  Interocular correlation, luminance contrast and cyclopean processing , 1991, Vision Research.

[16]  B. G. Hertz,et al.  The influence of bandwidth and temporal properties of spatial noise on binocular masking-level differences , 1977, Vision Research.

[17]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[18]  J. Pokorny Foundations of Cyclopean Perception , 1972 .

[19]  K N OGLE,et al.  Stereoscopic vision and the duration of the stimulus. , 1958, A.M.A. archives of ophthalmology.

[20]  R A Andersen,et al.  Transparent motion perception as detection of unbalanced motion signals. I. Psychophysics , 1994, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[21]  Julie M. Harris,et al.  Is stereopsis effective in breaking camouflage for moving targets? , 1997, Vision Research.

[22]  John Cass Mutual effects of orientation and contrast within and between the eyes: from summation to suppression , 2010 .

[23]  Barbara J Gillam,et al.  The swinging doors of perception: stereomotion without binocular matching. , 2006, Journal of vision.

[24]  D. Alais,et al.  Orientation bandwidths are invariant across spatiotemporal frequency after isotropic components are removed. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[25]  R. Andersen,et al.  Integration of motion and stereopsis in middle temporal cortical area of macaques , 1995, Nature.

[26]  M. Carandini,et al.  Suppression without Inhibition in Visual Cortex , 2002, Neuron.

[27]  Christopher W. Tyler,et al.  Binocular cross-correlation in time and space , 1978, Vision Research.

[28]  T. Meese,et al.  Psychophysical evidence for two routes to suppression before binocular summation of signals in human vision , 2007, Neuroscience.

[29]  D J Field,et al.  Relations between the statistics of natural images and the response properties of cortical cells. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[30]  A. Watson,et al.  Quest: A Bayesian adaptive psychometric method , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[31]  S. McKee,et al.  Stereo matching precedes dichoptic masking , 1994, Vision Research.

[32]  R Fox,et al.  Effect of depth separation on metacontrast masking. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[33]  Giampaolo Moraglia,et al.  On binocular unmasking of signals in noise: Further tests of the summation hypothesis , 1992, Vision Research.

[34]  Julie M. Harris,et al.  A binocular site for contrast-modulated masking , 2001, Vision Research.

[35]  Sean P. MacEvoy,et al.  A precise form of divisive suppression supports population coding in primary visual cortex , 2009, Nature Neuroscience.

[36]  D. Heeger Normalization of cell responses in cat striate cortex , 1992, Visual Neuroscience.

[37]  G. Henning,et al.  Binocular masking level differences in sinusoidal grating detection. , 1973, Vision research.

[38]  B Schneider,et al.  Binocular unmasking: an analog to binaural unmasking? , 1989, Science.

[39]  Michael Cook,et al.  Depth of monocular elements in a binocular scene: the conditions for da Vinci stereopsis. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[40]  M C Morrone,et al.  Inhibitory interactions in the human vision system revealed in pattern‐evoked potentials. , 1987, The Journal of physiology.

[41]  R. Freeman,et al.  Cross-orientation suppression: monoptic and dichoptic mechanisms are different. , 2005, Journal of neurophysiology.

[42]  Yoav Tadmor,et al.  The perceived contrast of texture patches embedded in natural images , 2006, Vision Research.

[43]  R. Watt Scanning from coarse to fine spatial scales in the human visual system after the onset of a stimulus. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[44]  T. Meese,et al.  Cross-orientation masking is speed invariant between ocular pathways but speed dependent within them. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[45]  S. McKee,et al.  The imprecision of stereopsis , 1990, Vision Research.

[46]  T. Meese,et al.  Binocular contrast interactions: Dichoptic masking is not a single process , 2007, Vision Research.

[47]  S. Solomon,et al.  Contrast sensitivity in natural scenes depends on edge as well as spatial frequency structure. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[48]  I. Ohzawa,et al.  Organization of suppression in receptive fields of neurons in cat visual cortex. , 1992, Journal of neurophysiology.

[49]  B. Gillam,et al.  Stereomotion perception for a monocularly camouflaged stimulus. , 2007, Journal of vision.