August 2009
Volume 9, Issue 8
Free
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   August 2009
Dichoptic and monoptic spatial integration of second-order contrast
Author Affiliations
  • Erwin Wong
    Graduate Program in Vision Science, College of Optometry, University of Missouri-St. Louis
  • Jenna Kryder
    Graduate Program in Vision Science, College of Optometry, University of Missouri-St. Louis
Journal of Vision August 2009, Vol.9, 1016. doi:10.1167/9.8.1016
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Erwin Wong, Jenna Kryder; Dichoptic and monoptic spatial integration of second-order contrast. Journal of Vision 2009;9(8):1016. doi: 10.1167/9.8.1016.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose. Past flanking studies using monocular viewing suggest that the second-stage neurons understood to encode second-order contrast receive substantial binocular input (Wong et al., 2005, Mansouri et al., 2005). Here we investigate the binocular nature of second-order processing more directly by using a flanking paradigm under dichoptic and monoptic viewing.

Methods. Four normal adults and one non-binocular/non-amblyopic (NBNA) adult participated. Observers detected an amplitude-modulated sinusoid alone (carrier 8 c/deg @ 3× contrast detection threshold (CDT), envelope 1 c/deg, σ = 1.5λ, 2° diameter patch, sinusoids vertical) and with two vertically aligned flanks (6' edge separation or 0.5° overlap). Flanks consisted of the target sinusoids, normalized carrier (3× CDT) and envelope (1.5× and 2.5× CDT) contrast, and were vertical, horizontal or carrier-only (control). Flanks were presented monoptically and dichoptically. Stimuli were presented via CRT and 2-AFC paradigm (500 msec intervals) with the MOCS, and viewed through a mirror haploscope with septum.

Results. For normal observers, on average the near-abutting oriented flanks facilitated contrast detection, slightly greater under monoptic than dichoptic viewing, and was contrast dependent (2.5× CTU produced greater facilitation). Dichoptic presentation of all oriented flanks overlapping the target produced suppression of contrast detection. For all views the carrier-only flanks produced no effect. For the NBNA observer, under monoptic and dichoptic viewing, the near-abutting oriented flanks at 1.5× CDT generally produced no effect and at 2.5× CDT produced suppression. Dichoptic presentation of all oriented flanks overlapping the target produced suppression. For all views the carrier-only flanks generally produced suppression.

Conclusions. Second-order contrast is substantially integrated interocularly across space but less than uniocular integration. Interocular integration was not shown by the non-binocular, non-amblyopic observer. The distinct binocular nature of second-order processing is supported by findings of non-integration of interocular first-order contrast across space (Huang et al., 2006).

Wong, E. Kryder, J. (2009). Dichoptic and monoptic spatial integration of second-order contrast [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 9(8):1016, 1016a, http://journalofvision.org/9/8/1016/, doi:10.1167/9.8.1016. [CrossRef]
Footnotes
 Support. NIH K23EY14261 (EW).
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×