Literature DB >> 25814548

Investigation of interocular blur suppression using luminance-modulated and contrast-modulated noise stimuli.

Akash S Chima1, Monika A Formankiewicz1, Sarah J Waugh1.   

Abstract

Presenting two sufficiently dissimilar images, one to each eye, may result in interocular suppression. The present study measured interocular suppression depth and extent in binocularly normal participants when blurring one eye only with varying dioptric lens powers (+0.5, +1, +2, and +4 D). Visual stimuli consisted of eight concentric rings of alternate polarity, divisible into eight sectors, within the central circular 24° visual field. Binocular "ring" stimuli therefore consisted of 64 individually testable dichoptic sectors. Using a two-alternative forced choice paradigm with a staircase procedure, signal strength of each dichoptic sector in the blurred eye was adjusted to perceptually match that of the surrounding ring from the nonblurred eye, determining the point of subjective equality. Rings were defined by differences in luminance (L), luminance-modulated noise (LM), or contrast-modulated noise (CM). Suppression depth was similar irrespective of sector location within the visual field and increased with increasing difference in interocular blur. Adding dynamic noise (LM vs. L stimuli) reduced the effect of blur on measured suppression depth. Significantly deeper suppression was measured for CM than for LM stimuli, both created using dynamic noise, the difference increasing at higher levels of interocular blur. As binocularity is disrupted with interocular blur, this result suggests that CM envelope combination may be processed by later mechanisms receiving binocular input than those required for the processing of LM stimuli. Differences in suppression depth between LM and CM stimuli could not be attributed to differences in spatial summation properties, stimulus visibility, noise modulation, or differential effects on blur discriminability.
© 2015 ARVO.

Entities:  

Keywords:  binocular vision; blur; contrast-modulated noise; interocular suppression; luminance-modulated noise; suppression mapping

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25814548     DOI: 10.1167/15.3.22

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vis        ISSN: 1534-7362            Impact factor:   2.240


  4 in total

1.  Quantifying Nasotemporal Asymmetry of Interocular Suppression in Alternating Strabismus After Correction.

Authors:  Qingshu Ge; Zidong Chen; Zitian Liu; Jing Samantha Pan; Yun Wen; Jinrong Li; Lei Feng; Junpeng Yuan; Daming Deng; Minbin Yu
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 4.799

2.  Influence of Artificially Generated Interocular Blur Difference on Fusion Stability Under Vergence Stress.

Authors:  Miroslav Dostalek; Karel Fliegel; Ladislav Dusek; Tomas Lukes; Jan Hejda; Michaela Duchackova; Jiri Hozman; Rudolf Autrata
Journal:  J Eye Mov Res       Date:  2019-09-11       Impact factor: 0.957

3.  Interocular ND filter suppression: Eccentricity and luminance polarity effects.

Authors:  Akash S Chima; Monika A Formankiewicz; Sarah J Waugh
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Levelt's laws do not predict perception when luminance- and contrast-modulated stimuli compete during binocular rivalry.

Authors:  Jan Skerswetat; Monika A Formankiewicz; Sarah J Waugh
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-09-26       Impact factor: 4.379

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.