PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Tim S Meese

Publications and source records attributed to Tim S Meese.

11 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2007

Spatial and temporal dependencies of cross-orientation suppression in human vision.

A well-known property of orientation-tuned neurons in the visual cortex is that they are suppressed by the superposition of an orthogonal mask. This phenomenon has been explained in terms of physiological constraints (synaptic depression), engineering solutions for components with poor dynamic range (contrast normalization) and fundamental coding strategies for natural images (redundancy reduction). A common but often tacit assumption is that the suppressive process is equally potent at different spatial and temporal scales of analysis. To determine whether it is so, we measured psychophysical cross-orientation masking (XOM) functions for flickering horizontal Gabor stimuli over wide ranges of spatio-temporal frequency and contrast. We found that orthogonal masks raised contrast detection thresholds substantially at low spatial frequencies and high temporal frequencies (high speeds), and that small and unexpected levels of facilitation were evident elsewhere. The data were well fit by a functional model of contrast gain control, where (i) the weight of suppression increased with the ratio of temporal to spatial frequency and (ii) the weight of facilitatory modulation was the same for all conditions, but outcompeted by suppression at higher contrasts. These results (i) provide new constraints for models of primary visual cortex, (ii) associate XOM and facilitation with the transient magno- and sustained parvostreams, respectively, and (iii) reconcile earlier conflicting psychophysical reports on XOM.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Remote facilitation in the Fourier domain.

To explore spatial interactions between visual mechanisms in the Fourier domain we measured detection thresholds for vertical and horizontal sine-wave gratings (4.4 deg diameter) over a range of spatial frequencies (0.5-23 c/deg) in the presence of grating and plaid masks with component contrasts of 8%, orientations of +/-45 degrees and a spatial frequency of 1c/deg. The mask suppressed the target grating over a range of +/-1 octave, and the plaid produced more suppression than the grating, consistent with summation of mask components in a broadly tuned contrast gain pool. At greater differences in spatial frequency ( approximately 3 octaves), the plaid and grating masks both produced about 3 dB of facilitation (they reduced detection thresholds by a factor of about square root 2). At yet further distances ( approximately 4 octaves) the masks had no effect. The facilitation cannot be attributed to a reduction of uncertainty by the mask because (a) it occurs for mask components that have very different spatial frequencies and orientations from the test and (b) the large stimulus size and central fixation point mean there was no spatial uncertainty that could be reduced. We suggest the results are due to long-range sensory interactions (in the Fourier domain) between mask and test-channels. The effects could be due to either direct facilitation or disinhibition.

Adaptation, Ocular↗
PubMed2006

Binocular contrast vision at and above threshold.

A fundamental problem for any visual system with binocular overlap is the combination of information from the two eyes. Electrophysiology shows that binocular integration of luminance contrast occurs early in visual cortex, but a specific systems architecture has not been established for human vision. Here, we address this by performing binocular summation and monocular, binocular, and dichoptic masking experiments for horizontal 1 cycle per degree test and masking gratings. These data reject three previously published proposals, each of which predict too little binocular summation and insufficient dichoptic facilitation. However, a simple development of one of the rejected models (the twin summation model) and a completely new model (the two-stage model) provide very good fits to the data. Two features common to both models are gently accelerating (almost linear) contrast transduction prior to binocular summation and suppressive ocular interactions that contribute to contrast gain control. With all model parameters fixed, both models correctly predict (1) systematic variation in psychometric slopes, (2) dichoptic contrast matching, and (3) high levels of binocular summation for various levels of binocular pedestal contrast. A review of evidence from elsewhere leads us to favor the two-stage model.

Contrast Sensitivity↗
PubMed2005

Size matters, but not for everyone: individual differences for contrast discrimination.

It is very well known that contrast detection thresholds improve with the size of a grating-type stimulus, but it is thought that the benefit of size is abolished for contrast discriminations well above threshold [e.g., Legge, G. E., & Foley, J. M. (1980)]. Here we challenge the generality of this view. We performed contrast detection and contrast discrimination for circular patches of sine wave grating as a function of stimulus size. We confirm that sensitivity improves with approximately the fourth-root of stimulus area at detection threshold (a log-log slope of -0.25) but find individual differences (IDs) for the suprathreshold discrimination task. For several observers, performance was largely unaffected by area, but for others performance first improved (by as much as a log-log slope of -0.5) and then reached a plateau. We replicated these different results several times on the same observers. All of these results were described in the context of a recent gain control model of area summation [Meese, T. S. (2004)], extended to accommodate the multiple stimulus sizes used here. In this model, (i) excitation increased with the fourth-root of stimulus area for all observers, and (ii) IDs in the discrimination data were described by IDs in the relation between suppression and area. This means that empirical summation in the contrast discrimination task can be attributed to growth in suppression with stimulus size that does not keep pace with the growth in excitation.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Neuromagnetic evoked responses to complex motions are greatest for expansion.

We analysed evoked magnetic responses to moving random dot stimuli, initially using a 19-channel magnetoencephalography (MEG) system, and subsequently using a 151-channel MEG system. Random dot displays were used to construct complex motion sequences, which we refer to as expansion, contraction, deformation, and rotation. We also investigated lateral translation and a condition in which the directions of the dots were randomised. In all stimulus conditions, the dots were first stationary, then traveled for a brief period (317 s or 542 ms), and were then stationary again. In all conditions, evoked magnetic responses were observed with a widespread bilateral distribution over the observers' heads. Initial recordings revealed a substantially larger evoked magnetic response to the expansion condition than the other conditions. In a revised study, we used a 151-channel MEG system and two stimulus diameters (9.3 and 48 deg), the smaller comparable with the first experiment. The responses were analysed using a nonparametric approach and confirmed our initial observations. In a third study, speed gradients were removed and a new design permitted direct comparisons between motion conditions. The results from all three experiments are consistent with the greater ecological validity of the expansion stimulus.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Interocular suppression is gated by interocular feature matching.

We present a new form of contrast masking in which the target is a patch of low spatial frequency grating (0.46 c/deg) and the mask is a dark thin ring that surrounds the centre of the target patch. In matching and detection experiments we found little or no effect for binocular presentation of mask and test stimuli. But when mask and test were presented briefly (33 or 200 ms) to different eyes (dichoptic presentation), masking was substantial. In a 'half-binocular' condition the test stimulus was presented to one eye, but the mask stimulus was presented to both eyes with zero-disparity. This produced masking effects intermediate to those found in dichoptic and full-binocular conditions. We suggest that interocular feature matching can attenuate the potency of interocular suppression, but unlike in previous work (McKee, S. P., Bravo, M. J., Taylor, D. G., & Legge, G. E. (1994) Stereo matching precedes dichoptic masking. Vision Research, 34, 1047) we do not invoke a special role for depth perception.

Accommodation, Ocular↗
PubMed2004

Grating and plaid masks indicate linear summation in a contrast gain pool.

In human vision, the response to luminance contrast at each small region in the image is controlled by a more global process where suppressive signals are pooled over spatial frequency and orientation bands. But what rules govern summation among stimulus components within the suppressive pool? We addressed this question by extending a pedestal plus pattern mask paradigm to use a stimulus with up to three mask components: a vertical 1 c/deg pedestal, plus pattern masks made from either a grating (orientation = -45 degrees ) or a plaid (orientation = +/-45 degrees ), with component spatial frequency of 3 c/deg. The overall contrast of both types of pattern mask was fixed at 20% (i.e., plaid component contrasts were 10%). We found that both of these masks transformed conventional dipper functions (threshold vs. pedestal contrast with no pattern mask) in exactly the same way: The dipper region was raised and shifted to the right, but the dipper handles superimposed. This equivalence of the two pattern masks indicates that contrast summation between the plaid components was perfectly linear prior to the masking stage. Furthermore, the pattern masks did not drive the detecting mechanism above its detection threshold because they did not abolish facilitation by the pedestal (Foley, 1994). Therefore, the pattern masking could not be attributed to within-channel masking, suggesting that linear summation of contrast signals takes place within a suppressive contrast gain pool. We present a quantitative model of the effects and discuss the implications for neurophysiological models of the process.

Adaptation, Ocular↗
PubMed2004

Area summation and masking.

At detection threshold, sensitivity improves as the area of a test grating increases, but not when the test is placed on a pedestal and the task becomes contrast discrimination (G. E. Legge & J. M. Foley, 1980). This study asks whether the abolition of area summation is specific to the situation where mask and test stimuli have the same spatial frequency and orientation ("within-channel" masking) or is more general, also occurring when mask and test stimuli are very different ("cross-channel" masking). Threshold versus contrast masking functions were measured where the test and mask were either both small (SS), both large (LL), or small and large, respectively (SL). For within-channel masking, facilitation and area summation were found at low mask contrasts, but the results for SS and LL converged at intermediate contrasts and above, replicating Legge and Foley (1980). For all three observers, less facilitation was found for SL than for SS. For cross-channel masking, area summation occurred across the entire masking function and results for SS and SL were identical. The results for the entire data set were well fit by an extended version of a contrast masking model (J. M. Foley, 1994) in which the weights of excitatory and suppressive surround terms were free parameters. I conclude that (i) there is no empirical abolition of area summation for cross-channel masking, (ii) within-channel area summation can be abolished empirically without being disabled in the model, (iii) observers are able to select the area of spatial integration, but not suppression, (iv) extending a cross-channel mask to the surround has no effect on contrast detection, and (v) there is a formal similarity between area summation and contrast adaptation.

Adaptation, Ocular↗
PubMed2004

Low spatial frequencies are suppressively masked across spatial scale, orientation, field position, and eye of origin.

Masking is said to occur when a mask stimulus interferes with the visibility of a target (test) stimulus. One widely held view of this process supposes interactions between mask and test mechanisms (cross-channel masking), and explicit models (e.g., J. M. Foley, 1994) have proposed that the interactions are inhibitory. Unlike a within-channel model, where masking involves the combination of mask and test stimulus within a single mechanism, this cross-channel inhibitory model predicts that the mask should attenuate the perceived contrast of a test stimulus. Another possibility is that masking is due to an increase in noise, in which case, perception of contrast should be unaffected once the signal exceeds detection threshold. We use circular patches and annuli of sine-wave grating in contrast detection and contrast matching experiments to test these hypotheses and investigate interactions across spatial frequency, orientation, field position, and eye of origin. In both types of experiments we found substantial effects of masking that can occur over a factor of 3 in spatial frequency, 45 degrees in orientation, across different field positions and between different eyes. We found the effects to be greatest at the lowest test spatial frequency we used (0.46 c/deg), and when the mask and test differed in all four dimensions simultaneously. This is surprising in light of previous work where it was concluded that suppression from the surround was strictly monocular (C. Chubb, G. Sperling, & J. A. Solomon, 1989). The results confirm that above detection threshold, cross-channel masking involves contrast suppression and not (purely) mask-induced noise. We conclude that cross-channel masking can be a powerful phenomenon, particularly at low test spatial frequencies and when mask and test are presented to different eyes.

Contrast Sensitivity↗
PubMed2002

Spiral mechanisms are required to account for summation of complex motion components.

Stimuli from one family of complex motions are defined by their spiral pitch, where cardinal axes represent signed expansion and rotation. Intermediate spirals are represented by intermediate pitches. It is well established that vision contains mechanisms that sum over space and direction to detect these stimuli (Morrone et al., Nature 376 (1995) 507) and one possibility is that four cardinal mechanisms encode the entire family. We extended earlier work (Meese & Harris, Vision Research 41 (2001) 1901) using subthreshold summation of random dot kinematograms and a two-interval forced choice technique to investigate this possibility. In our main experiments, the spiral pitch of one component was fixed and that of another was varied in steps of 15 degrees relative to the first. Regardless of whether the fixed component was aligned with cardinal axes or an intermediate spiral, summation to-coherence-threshold between the two components declined as a function of their difference in spiral pitch. Similar experiments showed that none of the following were critical design features or stimulus parameters for our results: superposition of signal dots, limited life-time dots, the presence of speed gradients, stimulus size or the number of dots. A simplex algorithm was used to fit models containing mechanisms spaced at a pitch of either 90 degrees (cardinal model) or 45 degrees (cardinal+model) and combined using a fourth-root summation rule. For both models, direction half-bandwidth was equated for all mechanisms and was the only free parameter. Only the cardinal+model could account for the full set of results. We conclude that the detection of complex motion in human vision requires both cardinal and spiral mechanisms with a half-bandwidth of approximately 46 degrees.

Humans↗