Texture Variations Suppress Suprathreshold Brightness and Colour Variations

Schofield, Andrew J.; Kingdom, Frederick A. A.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0114803

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Saliency of suppressed images has been shown to dictate the spatial origin of a perceptual change for luminance stimuli during CBR 56 and so might cause longer durations of predominance for the more strongly suppressed CM, over LM gratings 49 . We also incorporated asymmetric feedback 57 to reduce the effects of high visibility LM stimuli from the other eye generating similar proportions of IOG percepts to CM gratings (Fig. 7 E).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrast-modulated stimuli produce more superimposition and predominate perception when competing with comparable luminance-modulated stimuli during interocular grouping

Skerswetat

Formankiewicz

Waugh

2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interocular grouping (IOG) is a binocular visual function that can arise during multi-stable perception. IOG perception was initiated using split-grating stimuli constructed from luminance (L), luminancemodulated noise (LM) and contrast-modulated noise (CM). In Experiment 1, three different visibility levels were used for L and LM (or first-order) stimuli, and compared to fixed-visibility CM (or secondorder) stimuli. Eight binocularly normal participants indicated whether they perceived full horizontal or vertical gratings, superimposition, or other (piecemeal and eye-of-origin) percepts. CM stimuli rarely generated full IOG, but predominantly generated superimposition. In Experiment 2, Levelt's modified laws were tested for IOG in nine participants. Split-gratings presented to each eye contained different visibility LM gratings, or LM and CM gratings. The results for the LM-vs-LM conditions mostly followed the predictions of Levelt's modified laws, whereas the results for the LM-vs-CM conditions did not. Counterintuitively, when high-visibility LM and low-visibility CM split-gratings were used, high-visibility LM components did not predominate IOG perception. Our findings suggest that higher proportions of superimposition during CM-vs-CM viewing are due to binocular combination, rather than mutual inhibition. It implies that IOG percepts are more likely to be mediated at an earlier monocular, rather than a binocular stage. Our previously proposed conceptual framework for conventional binocular rivalry, which includes asymmetric feedback, visual saliency, or a combination of both (Skerswetat et al. Sci Rep 8:14432, 2018), might also account for IOG. We speculate that opponency neurons might mediate coherent percepts when dissimilar information separately enters the eyes. The human visual system has evolved to combine monocular inputs into a coherent, fused, binocular percept if those inputs have similar physical properties. Significant physical differences between two monocular images can lead to exclusive visibility of one eye's input for a few seconds until that eye's input is suppressed, as the formerly suppressed eye's input takes over visual awareness. This phenomenon is known as binocular rivalry 2-5. Conventional binocular rivalry (CBR) is typically generated by presenting for example, a vertical grating to one eye and a horizontal grating to the other. Perception will begin to alter between an exclusive vertical and an exclusive horizontal grating. Traditionally, CBR is known for alternation between two exclusive percepts but in transition between these exclusivity states, CBR also consists of "mixed" percepts, namely piecemeal (i.e. exclusivity in smaller local spatial zones across the visual field 6) and superimposition (i.e. percept of completely overlapping rival stimuli 7. Superimposition has been thought to be indicative of binocular fusion 7,8 .

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrast-modulated stimuli produce more superimposition and predominate perception when competing with comparable luminance-modulated stimuli during interocular grouping

Skerswetat

Formankiewicz

Waugh

2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Through the lens of color: Relationships between color properties and visual perception of wood (Acer.) figures

Qin,

Li,

Wang

et al. 2024

Materials & Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Ebbinghaus illusion in contrast-defined and orientation-defined stimuli

Лаврентьева

Murakami

2018

Vision Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the retinal image of the natural world, edges and shapes can be defined by first-order attributes, such as luminance, and second-order attributes, such as contrast and texture. Previous studies have suggested that, in the human visual system, these attributes are initially detected separately and integrated later. Thus, comparing the strength of different geometrical optical illusions in stimuli, in which different elements are defined by the same or different attributes, is helpful to investigate at which stage the underlying mechanism of the illusion is located. We investigated whether there is a single common mechanism underlying the Ebbinghaus illusion in stimuli defined by different attributes. We used the traditional Ebbinghaus (Titchener) illusion figure: a target disk surrounded by smaller or larger inducer disks. The background and stimuli consisted of sine-wave gratings. We manipulated the luminance, contrast, and grating orientations of the target disk and inducer disks to create stimuli defined by each of these attributes. We then examined whether the illusion occurred in stimuli defined by each single attribute and in compound stimuli, in which the target and inducers were defined by different attributes. We found that the Ebbinghaus illusion occurred with the same strength in stimuli defined by all three attributes. We also found an asymmetry, such as the second-order inducers affected the first-order target less than they affected the second-order targets, but the first-order inducers affected all targets similarly. Our findings suggest that different attributes are likely to be integrated into a cue-invariant shape representation prone to the Ebbinghaus illusion. However, first-order and second-order stimuli may differently contribute to the quantitative aspect of the illusion, resulting in the asymmetric illusion strength.

show abstract

Texture Variations Suppress Suprathreshold Brightness and Colour Variations

Cited by 4 publications

References 41 publications

Contrast-modulated stimuli produce more superimposition and predominate perception when competing with comparable luminance-modulated stimuli during interocular grouping

Contrast-modulated stimuli produce more superimposition and predominate perception when competing with comparable luminance-modulated stimuli during interocular grouping

Through the lens of color: Relationships between color properties and visual perception of wood (Acer.) figures

The Ebbinghaus illusion in contrast-defined and orientation-defined stimuli

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About