Contrast gain in the brain

Stimulating both eyes with matching stimuli enhances V1 responses

Neurons in the primary visual cortex (V1) of primates play a key role in combining monocular inputs to form a binocular response. Although much has been gleaned from studying how V1 responds to discrepant (dichoptic) images, equally important is to understand how V1 responds to concordant (dioptic) images in the two eyes. Here, we investigated the extent to which concordant, balanced, zero-disparity binocular stimulation modifies V1 responses to varying stimulus contrast using intracranial multielectrode arrays. On average, binocular stimuli evoked stronger V1 activity than their monocular counterparts. This binocular facilitation scaled most proportionately with contrast during the initial transient. As V1 responses evolved, additional contrast-mediated dynamics emerged. Specifically, responses exhibited longer maintenance of facilitation for lower contrast and binocular suppression at high contrast. These results suggest that V1 processes concordant stimulation of both eyes in at least two sequential steps: initial response enhancement followed by contrast-dependent control of excitation.

Effects of Spatial Frequency Filtering Choices on the Perception of Filtered Images

The early visual system is composed of spatial frequency-tuned channels that break an image into its individual frequency components. Therefore, researchers commonly filter images for spatial frequencies to arrive at conclusions about the differential importance of high versus and low spatial frequency image content. Here, we show how simple decisions about the filtering of the images, and how they are displayed on the screen, can result in drastically different behavioral outcomes. We show that jointly normalizing the contrast of the stimuli is critical in order to draw accurate conclusions about the influence of the different spatial frequencies, as images of the real world naturally have higher contrast energy at low than high spatial frequencies. Furthermore, the specific choice of filter shape can result in contradictory results about whether high or low spatial frequencies are more useful for understanding image content. Finally, we show that the manner in which the high spatial frequency content is displayed on the screen influences how recognizable an image is. Previous findings that make claims about the visual system's use of certain spatial frequency bands should be revisited, especially if their methods sections do not make clear what filtering choices were made.

Spatial frequency processing in scene-selective cortical regions

Visual analysis begins with the parallel extraction of different attributes at different spatial frequencies. Low spatial frequencies (LSF) convey coarse information and are characterized by high luminance contrast, while high spatial frequencies (HSF) convey fine details and are characterized by low luminance contrast. In the present fMRI study, we examined how scene-selective regions-the parahippocampal place area (PPA), the retrosplenial cortex (RSC) and the occipital place area (OPA)-responded to spatial frequencies when contrast was either equalized or not equalized across spatial frequencies. Participants performed a categorization task on LSF, HSF and non-filtered scenes belonging to two different categories (indoors and outdoors). We either left contrast across scenes untouched, or equalized it using a root-mean-square contrast normalization. We found that when contrast remained unmodified, LSF and NF scenes elicited greater activation than HSF scenes in the PPA. However, when contrast was equalized across spatial frequencies, the PPA was selective to HFS. This suggests that PPA activity relies on an interaction between spatial frequency and contrast in scenes. In the RSC, LSF and NF elicited greater response than HSF scenes when contrast was not modified, while no effect of spatial frequencies appeared when contrast was equalized across filtered scenes, suggesting that the RSC is sensitive to high-contrast information. Finally, we observed selective activation of the OPA in response to HSF, irrespective of contrast manipulation. These results provide new insights into how scene-selective areas operate during scene processing.

Representation of surface luminance and contrast in primary visual cortex

In visual perception, object identification requires both the ability to define regions of uniform luminance and zones of luminance contrast. Neural processes underlying contrast detection have been well studied, while those defining luminance remain poorly understood and controversial. Partially because stimuli comprised of uniform luminance are relatively ineffective in driving responses of cortical neurons, little effort has been made to systematically compare responses of individual neurons to both uniform luminance and contrast. Using large static uniform luminance and contrast stimuli, modulated temporally in luminance or contrast, we found a continuum of responses ranging from a few cells modulated only by luminance (luminance-only), to many cells modulated by both luminance and contrast (luminance-contrast), and to many others modulated only by contrast (contrast-only) in primary visual cortex. Moreover, luminance-contrast cells had broader orientation tuning, larger receptive field (RF) and lower spatial frequency Preference, on average, than contrast-only cells. Contrast-only cells had contrast responses more linearly correlated to the spatial structure of their RFs than luminance-contrast cells. Taken together these results suggest that luminance and contrast are represented, to some degree, by independent mechanisms that may be shaped by different classes of subcortical and/or cortical inputs.

A multiplicative model for spatial interaction in the human visual cortex

Multifocal visual evoked potentials (mfVEP) were recorded simultaneously for both the target and the neighbor stimuli, each varying over 6 levels of contrast: 0%, 4%, 8%, 16%, 32%, and 64%. For most conditions, the relationship between the amplitude of target response and the contrast of the neighbor stimulus, as well as the amplitude of the response to the target stimulus, were described with a simple, normalization model. However, when the neighbor stimulus had a much higher contrast than the target stimulus, the amplitude of the target response was larger than the prediction from the normalization model. These results suggest that spatial interaction observed in the mfVEP requires (1) multiplicative mechanisms, (2) mutual inhibition between neighboring regions, and (3) a mechanism that saturates when the ratio between the contrasts of the target and that of the neighbor is large. A modified multiplicative model that incorporates these elements describes the results.