Detecting contrast changes in invisible patterns during binocular rivalry

When dissimilar images are presented to the two eyes, the human visual system lapses into binocular rivalry, a unique perceptual state characterized by stochastic alternations in dominance of one of the two source images over the other. Probe targets delivered to an eye during suppression phases are more difficult to detect than probes delivered during dominance phases. Nearly all probe studies have involved presenting new stimulation (e.g., a spot of light) either superimposed on or replacing the suppressed stimulus. Here, we ask whether observers can detect a reduction in the contrast of the suppressed stimulus itself. In other words, can observers detect a probe that should make an already invisible stimulus even weaker? Specifically, we compared observers' ability to detect contrast increments and contrast decrements introduced within a rival pattern during dominance and suppression. Contrast increment thresholds were elevated across all pedestal contrasts when the increment was introduced during suppression compared to during dominance, replicating previous results. Contrast decrement thresholds measured during suppression were elevated to an even greater extent, but the fact that they were obtained at all establishes that observers were able to detect probes that should make an already invisible target even more difficult to perceive. In a second experiment, we found a similar pattern of results for contrast change detection in complex images of faces as well. Based on the resulting threshold-vs.-contrast functions, we suggest that, regardless of the complexity of the image, rivalry suppression modulates the neural contrast response function through a mixture of reduced overall response gain and a shift in the contrast gain.

[1]  Hansjoerg E. Kolder,et al.  Visual Psychophysics and Physiology , 1979 .

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

[3]  John H. R. Maunsell,et al.  Functions of the ON and OFF channels of the visual system , 1986, Nature.

[4]  N. Logothetis,et al.  Multistable phenomena: changing views in perception , 1999, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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

[6]  John H. R. Maunsell,et al.  Effects of spatial attention on contrast response functions in macaque area V4. , 2006, Journal of neurophysiology.

[7]  Anne Treisman,et al.  Binocular Rivalry and Stereoscopic Depth Perception , 1962 .

[8]  R. Blake,et al.  Neural bases of binocular rivalry , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[9]  D. Heeger,et al.  Neuronal basis of contrast discrimination , 1999, Vision Research.

[10]  Frances S. Chance,et al.  Gain Modulation from Background Synaptic Input , 2002, Neuron.

[11]  David Alais,et al.  Strength and coherence of binocular rivalry depends on shared stimulus complexity , 2007, Vision Research.

[12]  Zijiang J. He,et al.  Coexistence of binocular integration and suppression determined by surface border information , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[14]  Adriana de Pesters,et al.  Psychophysical magic: rendering the "invisible" visible , 2009 .

[15]  Colin Blakemore,et al.  Interocular control of neuronal responsiveness in cat visual cortex , 1994, Nature.

[16]  Richard H. A. H. Jacobs,et al.  The time course of binocular rivalry reveals a fundamental role of noise. , 2006, Journal of vision.

[17]  K. Nakayama,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article FITTING THE MIND TO THE WORLD: Face Adaptation and Attractiveness Aftereffects , 2022 .

[18]  P. Bex,et al.  The perception of suprathreshold contrast and fast adaptive filtering. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[19]  P. Wenderoth,et al.  The depth and selectivity of suppression in binocular rivalry , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[20]  C W Tyler,et al.  Colour bit-stealing to enhance the luminance resolution of digital displays on a single pixel basis. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[21]  C. Clifford,et al.  Suppressed Patterns Alter Vision during Binocular Rivalry , 2005, Current Biology.

[22]  W. Makous,et al.  14 – Suppressive Interactions between Fused Patterns1 , 1978 .

[23]  S P McKee,et al.  Binocular Rivalry Disrupts Stereopsis , 1994, Perception.

[24]  K. Dobkins,et al.  Attentional effects on contrast discrimination in humans: evidence for both contrast gain and response gain , 2004, Vision Research.

[25]  D. Alais,et al.  Contrast sensitivity of form and motion discrimination during binocular rivalry , 2005, Vision Research.

[26]  D. Heeger,et al.  The Normalization Model of Attention , 2009, Neuron.

[27]  R. Blake,et al.  Suppression During Binocular Rivalry Broadens Orientation Tuning , 2009, Psychological science.

[28]  B. Dosher,et al.  Spatial attention: different mechanisms for central and peripheral temporal precues? , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[29]  Jeroen J. A. van Boxtel,et al.  Dichoptic masking and binocular rivalry share common perceptual dynamics. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[30]  R. Fox,et al.  Increment detection thresholds during binocular rivalry suppression , 1970 .

[31]  E. Rolls,et al.  Size and contrast have only small effects on the responses to faces of neurons in the cortex of the superior temporal sulcus of the monkey , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[32]  S. Treue,et al.  Attentional Modulation Strength in Cortical Area MT Depends on Stimulus Contrast , 2002, Neuron.

[33]  Charles Wheatstone,et al.  Contributions to the Physiology of Vision. , 1837 .

[34]  John H. R. Maunsell,et al.  Coding of image contrast in central visual pathways of the macaque monkey , 1990, Vision Research.

[35]  D. Spinelli,et al.  Different attentional resources modulate the gain mechanisms for color and luminance contrast , 2004, Vision Research.

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

[37]  Hideko F. Norman,et al.  The Temporal Course of Suppression during Binocular Rivalry , 2000, Perception.

[38]  T. Hendler,et al.  Contrast sensitivity in human visual areas and its relationship to object recognition. , 2002, Journal of neurophysiology.

[39]  R. Blake,et al.  Binocular summation occurs during interocular suppression. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[40]  D. G. Albrecht,et al.  Striate cortex of monkey and cat: contrast response function. , 1982, Journal of neurophysiology.

[41]  M. Carrasco,et al.  Sustained and transient covert attention enhance the signal via different contrast response functions , 2006, Vision Research.

[42]  Colin Blakemore,et al.  Integration of motion information during binocular rivalry , 2002, Vision Research.

[43]  Steven C Dakin,et al.  Contrast gain control in natural scenes. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[44]  P. Ekman Pictures of Facial Affect , 1976 .

[45]  R. Blake,et al.  On the inhibitory nature of binocular rivalry suppression. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[46]  C. Wheatstone XVIII. Contributions to the physiology of vision. —Part the first. On some remarkable, and hitherto unobserved, phenomena of binocular vision , 1962, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London.

[47]  David Alais,et al.  Increasing depth of binocular rivalry suppression along two visual pathways , 2003, Vision Research.