Skip to main content
Log in

Binocular, Monocular and Dichoptic Pattern Masking

  • Vision
  • Published:
Optical Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It has been reported that a quadratic summation rule can account for threshold versus masker contrast (TvC) functions for binocular, monocular and dichoptic masking. However, the present study suggests that inputs from two eyes are summed in different ways. Foley’s model was revised to describe TvC functions for binocular, monocular and dichoptic masking. The revised model has the following two characteristics. First, the revised model receives two monocular inputs. Secondly, excitations and inhibitory signals are subjected to nonlinear transducer functions before and after summation of the monocular signals. A two-alternative forced-choice procedure was used to measure contrast thresholds for Gaussian windowed sine-wave gratings (target) in the presence of sine-wave gratings (masker). Thresholds were measured for 11 masker contrasts and the three masking conditions. It was shown that this revised model fitted the data resonably well. The revised model indicates how monocular inputs are summed in contrast processing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. G. E. Legge and J. M. Foley: J. Opt. Soc. Am. 70 (1980) 1458.

    Google Scholar 

  2. H. R. Wilson, D. K. McFarlane and G. C. Phillips: Vision Res. 23 (1983) 873.

    Google Scholar 

  3. J. Ross and H. D. Speed: Proc. R. Soc. B 246 (1991) 61.

    Google Scholar 

  4. J. M. Foley: J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 11 (1994) 1710.

    Google Scholar 

  5. A. B. Watson and J. A. Solomon: J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 14 (1997) 2379.

    Google Scholar 

  6. J. M. Foley and C. C. Chen: Vision Res. 39 (1999) 3855.

    Google Scholar 

  7. T. S. Messe and D. J. Holmes: Vision Res. 42 (2002) 1113.

    Google Scholar 

  8. J. Nachmias and R. V. Sunsbury: Vision Res. 14 (1974) 1039.

    Google Scholar 

  9. C. F. Stromeyer III and S. Klein: Vision Res. 14 (1974) 1409.

    Google Scholar 

  10. K.-I. Naka and W. A. H. Rushton: J. Physiol. 185 (1966) 587.

    Google Scholar 

  11. D. J. Heeger: Visual Neurosci. 9 (1992) 181.

    Google Scholar 

  12. G. E. Legge: J. Opt. Soc. Am. 69 (1979) 838.

    Google Scholar 

  13. D. M. Levi, R. S. Harweth and E. L. Smith III: Science 206 (1979) 852.

    Google Scholar 

  14. J. M. Harris and A. Willis: Vision Res. 41 (2001) 873.

    Google Scholar 

  15. F. W. Campbell and D. G. Green: Nature 208 (1965) 191.

    Google Scholar 

  16. F. Thorn and R. M. Boynton: Vision Res. 14 (1974) 445.

    Google Scholar 

  17. G. E. Legge: Vision Res. 24 (1984) 373.

    Google Scholar 

  18. G. E. Legge: Vision Res. 24 (1984) 385.

    Google Scholar 

  19. A. I. Cogan: Vision Res. 27 (1987) 2125.

    Google Scholar 

  20. P. A. Anderson and J. A. Movshon: Vision Res. 29 (1989) 1115.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Here, we use the same symbols as Foley’s. An exception is j, which refers to the right or left eyes in the present study. Foley and Chen used j to refer to mechanisms tuned to different phases.6).

  22. Actually, the outputs of linear operators are computed using convolution. This computation is somewhat complex, but can be simplified and written as eq. (3).4,6)

  23. D. G. Pelli and L. Zhang: Vision Res. 31 (1991) 1337.

    Google Scholar 

  24. D. G. Pelli: Spatial Vis. 10 (1997) 437.

    Google Scholar 

  25. F. A. Wichmann and N. J. Hill: Percept. Psychophys. 63 (2001) 1293.

    Google Scholar 

  26. F. A. Wichmann and N. J. Hill: Percept. Psychophys. 63 (2001) 1314.

    Google Scholar 

  27. J. C. Lagarias, J. A. Reeds, M. H. Wright and P. E. Wright: SIAM J. Optim. 9 (1998) 112.

    Google Scholar 

  28. When sensitivity parameters (S It , S Im , and S Em ) were estimated lower than 1.0, we considered them to be nearly 0.

  29. U. Polat and D. Sagi: Vision Res. 33 (1993) 993.

    Google Scholar 

  30. U. Polat and D. Sagi: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91 (1994) 1206.

    Google Scholar 

  31. I. Ohzawa, G. C. DeAngelis and R. D. Freeman: Science 249 (1990) 1037.

    Google Scholar 

  32. C. C. Chen, J. M. Foley and D. H. Brainard: Vision Res. 40 (2000) 773.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Maehara, G., Goryo, K. Binocular, Monocular and Dichoptic Pattern Masking. OPT REV 12, 76–82 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00021542

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00021542

Keywords

Navigation