Nearby contours abolish the binocular advantage

That binocular viewing confers an advantage over monocular viewing for detecting isolated low luminance or low contrast objects, has been known for well over a century; however, the processes involved in combining the images from the two eyes are still not fully understood. Importantly, in natural vision, objects are rarely isolated but appear in context. It is well known that nearby contours can either facilitate or suppress detection, depending on their distance from the target and the global configuration. Here we report that at close distances collinear (but not orthogonal) flanking contours suppress detection more under binocular compared to monocular viewing, thus completely abolishing the binocular advantage, both at threshold and suprathreshold levels. In contrast, more distant flankers facilitate both monocular and binocular detection, preserving a binocular advantage up to about four times the detection threshold. Our results for monocular and binocular viewing, for threshold contrast discrimination without nearby flankers, can be explained by a gain control model with uncertainty and internal multiplicative noise adding additional constraints on detection. However, in context with nearby flankers, both contrast detection threshold and suprathreshold contrast appearance matching require the addition of both target-to-target and flank-to-target interactions occurring before the site of binocular combination. To test an alternative model, in which the interactions occur after the site of binocular combination, we performed a dichoptic contrast matching experiment, with the target presented to one eye, and the flanks to the other eye. The two models make very different predictions for abutting flanks under dichoptic conditions. Interactions after the combination site predict that the perceived contrast of the flanked target will be strongly suppressed, while interactions before the site predict the perceived contrast will be more or less veridical. The data are consistent with the latter model, strongly suggesting that the interactions take place before the site of binocular combination.

Examining the effects of stimulus location and monocular-binocular viewing on the sound-induced flash illusion

The present study aimed to determine whether stimulus location (central or peripheral) or eye viewing condition (binocular, dominant monocular, or non-dominant monocular) had a greater magnitude of effect on perception of the sound-induced flash illusion (SIFI). Both the fission illusion (when one flash paired with two beeps is perceived as two flashes) and the fusion illusion (when two flashes paired with one beep are perceived as one flash) were measured in all location and eye viewing conditions. Analyses revealed significant fission and fusion illusions in all conditions. Additionally, we found significant differences in central and peripheral criterion levels that were driven by differences between binocular and monocular viewing conditions. Data analyses demonstrated that location of the visual stimulus had a greater magnitude of effect on the illusion than eye viewing condition. Our findings add to the growing literature supporting the mechanisms underlying central-peripheral eccentricity, and contradict the optimal integration model of the SIFI. The implications of these results would help better our understanding of the SIFI and audiovisual integration. Future studies must be conducted to confirm these results in a more representative sample.

Optokinetic stimulation induces vertical vergence, possibly through a non-visual pathway

Vertical vergence is generally associated with one of three mechanisms: vestibular activation during a head tilt, induced by vertical visual disparity, or as a by-product of ocular torsion. However, vertical vergence can also be induced by seemingly unrelated visual conditions, such as optokinetic rotations. This study aims to investigate the effect of vision on this latter form of vertical vergence. Eight subjects (4m/4f) viewed a visual scene in head erect position in two different viewing conditions (monocular and binocular). The scene, containing white lines angled at 45° against a black background, was projected at an eye-screen distance of 2 m, and rotated 28° at an acceleration of 56°/s2. Eye movements were recorded using a Chronos Eye-Tracker, and eye occlusions were carried out by placing an infrared-translucent cover in front of the left eye during monocular viewing. Results revealed vergence amplitudes during binocular viewing to be significantly lower than those seen for monocular conditions (p = 0.003), while torsion remained unaffected. This indicates that vertical vergence to optokinetic stimulation, though visually induced, is visually suppressed during binocular viewing. Considering that vertical vergence is generally viewed as a vestibular signal, the findings may reflect a visually induced activation of a vestibular pathway.

Variance components affecting the repeatability of the alternating cover test

In within-subject and within-examiner repeated measures designs, measures of heterophoria with the manual prism cover test achieve standard deviations between 0.5 and 0.8 deg. We addressed the question how this total noise is composed of variable errors related to the examiner (measurement noise), to the size of the heterophoria (heterophoria noise), and to the availability of sensory vergence cues (stimulus noise). We developed an automated alternating cover test (based on a combination of VOG and shutter glasses) which minimizes stimulus noise and has a defined measurement noise (sd=0.06 deg). In a within-subject design, 19 measures were taken within 1.5 min and multiple such blocks were repeated either across days or across 45 min. Blocks were separated by periods of binocular viewing. The standard deviation of the heterophoria across blocks from different days or from the same day (sd=0.33 deg) was 6 times larger than expected based on the standard deviation within the block. The results show that about 42% of the inter-block variance with the manual prism cover test was related to variability of the heterophoria and not to measurement noise or stimulus noise. The heterophoria noise across blocks was predominantly induced during the inter-mediate binocular viewing periods.