Temporal Evolution of Pattern Disparity Processing in Humans

Quaia, Christian; Sheliga, Boris M.; Optican, Lance M.; Cumming, Bruce G.

doi:10.1523/jneurosci.4318-12.2013

Cited by 7 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The result is that stereoacuity and perceived depth for 1-D patterns vary with stimulus orientation, a fact known for many years but open to diverse interpretations (Blake, Camisa, & Antoinetti, 1976;Ebenholtz & Walchli, 1965;Farell & Ahuja, 1996;Friedman, Kaye, & Richards, 1978;Morgan & Castet, 1997;Ogle, 1955; see Howard & Rogers, 2002). In general, the psychophysical effects of 1-D stimulus orientation are consistent with an effective disparity that has a direction perpendicular to the orientation Farell, 1998Farell, , 2006Morgan & Castet, 1997;Patel, Bedell, & Sampat, 2006;Patel et al, 2003;Quaia et al, 2013), though the physiological evidence is mixed (e.g., Cumming, 2002;Durand, Celebrini, & Trotter, 2007;Maske, Yamane, & Bishop, 1986).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Perceived depth in non-transitive stereo displays

Farell

2014

Vision Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The separation between the eyes shapes the distribution of binocular disparities and gives a special role to horizontal disparities. However, for one-dimensional stimuli, disparity direction, like motion direction, is linked to stimulus orientation. This makes the perceived depth of one-dimensional stimuli orientation dependent and generally non-veridical. It also allows perceived depth to violate transitivity. Three stimuli, A, B, and C, can be arranged such that A > B (stimulus A is seen as farther than stimulus B when they are presented together) and B > C, yet A ⩽ C. This study examines how the visual system handles the depth of A, B, and C when they are presented together, forming a pairwise inconsistent stereo display. Observers' depth judgments of displays containing a grating and two plaids resolved transitivity violations among the component stimulus pairs. However, these judgments were inconsistent with judgments of the same stimuli within depth-consistent displays containing no transitivity violations. To understand the contribution of individual disparity signals, observers were instructed in subsequent experiments to judge the depth of a subset of display stimuli. This attentional instruction was ineffective; relevant and irrelevant stimuli contributed equally to depth judgments. Thus, the perceived depth separating a pair of stimuli depended on the disparities of the other stimuli presented concurrently. This context dependence of stereo depth can be approximated by an obligatory pooling and comparison of the disparities of one- and two-dimensional stimuli along an axis defined locally by the stimuli.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Perceived depth in non-transitive stereo displays

Farell

2014

Vision Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unidisparity plaids (Quaia et al, 2013 ) are ideal stimuli to study pattern disparity computations. They are obtained by summing two gratings (typically sinusoidal or 1-D noise): one vertical with near or far disparity and one oblique (±45°) with zero disparity (i.e., in the plane of fixation).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The methodology used to acquire the data presented here is identical to that used in our previously published study (Quaia et al, 2013 ). Accordingly, it will only be described briefly here.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We recently showed (Quaia, Sheliga, Optican, & Cumming, 2013 ) that the reflexive, short-latency, disparity vergence mechanism discovered by Busettini, Masson, and Miles ( 1996 ) responds to the 2-D pattern disparity of stereo plaids, sometimes even when the plaid is not perceptually coherent (e.g., with square-wave plaids). Importantly, our findings supported Farell's ( 1998 ) proposal that the 2-D pattern disparity signal is computed by combining 1-D disparities, first extracted within orientation-selective channels in area V1 (Hubel & Wiesel, 1968 ), according to the intersection-of-constraints (IOC) rule (Adelson & Movshon, 1982 ; Fennema & Thompson, 1979 ): Disparity-selective 2-D feature detectors are neither necessary nor sufficient.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Combining 1-D components to extract pattern information: It is about more than component similarity

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At least under some conditions, plaid stimuli are processed by combining information first extracted in orientation and scale-selective channels. The rules that govern this combination across channels are only partially understood. Although the available data suggests that only components having similar spatial frequency and contrast are combined, the extent to which this holds has not been firmly established. To address this question, we measured, in human subjects, the short-latency reflexive vergence eye movements induced by stereo plaids in which spatial frequency and contrast of the components are independently varied. We found that, although similarity in component spatial frequency and contrast matter, they interact in a nonseparable way. One way in which this relationship might arise is if the internal estimate of contrast is not a faithful representation of stimulus contrast but is instead spatial frequency–dependent (with higher spatial frequencies being boosted). We propose that such weighting might have been put in place by a mechanism that, in an effort of achieve contrast constancy and/or coding efficiency, regulates the gain of detectors in early visual cortex to equalize their long-term average response to natural images.

show abstract

“…The strength of the OFR was quantified by computing, for each condition, the average difference eye speed in a time window that started at the latency of the response. The latency, which is a function of contrast, was defined as the time at which the difference eye speed became significantly ( p < 0.05) different from zero, and was determined using a non-parametric bootstrap-based technique (Quaia, Sheliga, Optican, & Cumming, 2013 ). Latencies were initially computed separately for each stimulus condition.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Binocular summation for reflexive eye movements

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychophysical studies and our own subjective experience suggest that, in natural viewing conditions (i.e., at medium to high contrasts), monocularly and binocularly viewed scenes appear very similar, with the exception of the improved depth perception provided by stereopsis. This phenomenon is usually described as a lack of binocular summation. We show here that there is an exception to this rule: Ocular following eye movements induced by the sudden motion of a large stimulus, which we recorded from three human subjects, are much larger when both eyes see the moving stimulus, than when only one eye does. We further discovered that this binocular advantage is a function of the interocular correlation between the two monocular images: It is maximal when they are identical, and reduced when the two eyes are presented with different images. This is possible only if the neurons that underlie ocular following are sensitive to binocular disparity.

show abstract

Temporal Evolution of Pattern Disparity Processing in Humans

Cited by 7 publications

References 50 publications

Perceived depth in non-transitive stereo displays

Perceived depth in non-transitive stereo displays

Combining 1-D components to extract pattern information: It is about more than component similarity

Binocular summation for reflexive eye movements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About