On utrocular discrimination

Blake, Randolph; Cormack, Robert H.

doi:10.3758/bf03199861

Cited by 66 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The point of departure for these studies has been the observation by Campbell and Green (1965) that binocular contrast sensitivity for grating detection is higher than monocular sensitivity by the factor V2. This finding has since been confirmed (Arditi et al, 1981;Blake & Cormack, 1979;Blake & Levinson, 1977;Blake & Rush, 1980;Blakemore & Hague, 1972;Lema & Blake, 1977;Levi, Harwerth, & Smith, 1979;Rose, 1978), although some studies have noted that the magnitude of summation declines with increasing spatial frequency. Campbell and Green always presented identical spatial frequencies to the two eyes.…”

Section: Temporal Correspondencementioning

confidence: 78%

Further developments in binocular summation

Blake¹,

Sloane²,

Fox

1981

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

228

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews experiments that bear on the issue of binocular summation, the superiority of binocular over monocular viewing on various visual tasks covering studies published since the appearance of a previous review of this literature by Blake and Fox (1973). The experiments are grouped into three main categories-those that deal with the specificity of binocular summation (i.e., the extent to which inputs to the two eyes must coincide spatially and temporally), those that study binocular summation on suprathreshold tasks, and those that correlate binocular summation with other aspects of binocular function. The last section of the paper critically reviews several models of binocular summation.In a 1973 review of studies on binocular summation, the superiority of binocular over monocular viewing on visual threshold tasks, Blake and Fox concluded that (1) binocular summation occurs for many tasks, including increment detection, form recognition, contrast sensitivity, and flicker detection, and (2) this enhancement in binocular performance stems from genuine neural interaction between the eyes, not just probability summation. The present review examines experiments on binocular summation that have appeared since the 1973 survey, and, as before, attention is limited to psychophysical experiments comparing monocular and binocular visual performance, excluding investigations of binocular rivalry and stereopsis. The review examines (1) the specificity of binocular summation, that is, the extent to which inputs to the two eyes must be matched along some dimension in order to yield binocular summation, (2) the evidence for binocular summation in visual performance with suprathreshold stimulation, (3) individual differences in the magnitude of binocular summation, and (4) recent theoretical accounts of binocular summation.It should be noted that an improvement in binocular performance relative to monocular performance does not necessarily imply neural interaction between the two eyes, since statistical considerations alone dictate such an improvement: binocular viewing affords an observer two opportunities to detect a weakWe are grateful to Geoff Iverson, Joseph Lappin, James Hoffman, and Martha Teghtsoonian for their comments on an earlier version of this review. During preparation of this paper, R.B. was supported by a Career Development Award from NIH (EYOOI06). Requests for reprints should be sent to Randolph Blake, Cresap Neuroscience Laboratory, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60201.signal. This statistical property has been formalized as the probability summation hypothesis, and Blake and Fox (1973) discuss the various formulations of this hypothesis in detail. Recent work has generally recognized and sought to assess the potential contribution of probability summation, using either normative models (e.g., the integration model of signal detection theory) or empirical control conditions (e.g., temporal separation of the two monocular inputs). Moreover, very recently the logic of the probability s...

show abstract

Section: Temporal Correspondencementioning

confidence: 78%

Further developments in binocular summation

Blake¹,

Sloane²,

Fox

1981

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

228

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Certainly, there is no evidence from these data that the subjects can do the task. Some utrocular tasks are possible (e.g., Blake & Cormack, 1979). Generally, these rely on a somewhat mysterious, visceral "feeling" in the eye whose origins are not well understood (Martens, Blake, Sloane, & Cormack, 1981).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Binocularity and visual search

Wolfe

Franzel

1988

Perception & Psychophysics

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes a series of visual search experiments for targets defined by their binocular c.haracteristics. In searches for targets defined by binocular rivalry among fused distractors, or VIce versa, the rivalrous items do not "pop out" (reaction time [RT] increases with number of distractors). Binocular luster, a variety of rivalry, is an exception. Luster, an important property of visible surfaces, behaves like a basic feature or "texton" (RT independent of the number of nonlustrous distractors). Searches for targets defined exclusively by eye-of-origin information are virtually impossible. Subjects respond randomly, suggesting that purely monocular information is not available for visual search. Searches for cyclopean (but nonstereoscopic) features are easy with RTs independent of set size, suggesting that some purely binocular information is available for visual search.

show abstract

“…1) to deliver stimuli (such as displays of dots or of number forms). This approach induces the perception of a single, "fused" image when stimuli are presented dichoptically and the participant does not know in which eye the signal originated (74,75). Because participants do not know in which eye the signal originated, this approach allows us to present sequential stimuli in the same eye or in two eyes separately without the participant perceiving a difference.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Numerosity representation is encoded in human subcortex

Collins

Park

Behrmann

2017

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

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Certain numerical abilities appear to be relatively ubiquitous in the animal kingdom, including the ability to recognize and differentiate relative quantities. This skill is present in human adults and children, as well as in nonhuman primates and, perhaps surprisingly, is also demonstrated by lower species such as mosquitofish and spiders, despite the absence of cortical computation available to primates. This ubiquity of numerical competence suggests that representations that connect to numerical tasks are likely subserved by evolutionarily conserved regions of the nervous system. Here, we test the hypothesis that the evaluation of relative numerical quantities is subserved by lower-order brain structures in humans. Using a monocular/dichoptic paradigm, across four experiments, we show that the discrimination of displays, consisting of both large (5-80) and small (1-4) numbers of dots, is facilitated in the monocular, subcortical portions of the visual system. This is only the case, however, when observers evaluate larger ratios of 3:1 or 4:1, but not smaller ratios, closer to 1:1. This profile of competence matches closely the skill with which newborn infants and other species can discriminate numerical quantity. These findings suggest conservation of ontogenetically and phylogenetically lower-order systems in adults' numerical abilities. The involvement of subcortical structures in representing numerical quantities provokes a reconsideration of current theories of the neural basis of numerical cognition, inasmuch as it bolsters the crossspecies continuity of the biological system for numerical abilities.subcortex | numerical cognition | vision | development | phylogeny

show abstract

On utrocular discrimination

Cited by 66 publications

References 31 publications

Further developments in binocular summation

Further developments in binocular summation

Binocularity and visual search

Numerosity representation is encoded in human subcortex

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About