↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

The Effect of Interocular Phase Difference on Perceived Contrast

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
The Effect of Interocular Phase Difference on Perceived Contrast
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0034696
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel H. Baker, Stuart A. Wallis, Mark A. Georgeson, Tim S. Meese

Abstract

Binocular vision is traditionally treated as two processes: the fusion of similar images, and the interocular suppression of dissimilar images (e.g. binocular rivalry). Recent work has demonstrated that interocular suppression is phase-insensitive, whereas binocular summation occurs only when stimuli are in phase. But how do these processes affect our perception of binocular contrast? We measured perceived contrast using a matching paradigm for a wide range of interocular phase offsets (0-180°) and matching contrasts (2-32%). Our results revealed a complex interaction between contrast and interocular phase. At low contrasts, perceived contrast reduced monotonically with increasing phase offset, by up to a factor of 1.6. At higher contrasts the pattern was non-monotonic: perceived contrast was veridical for in-phase and antiphase conditions, and monocular presentation, but increased a little at intermediate phase angles. These findings challenge a recent model in which contrast perception is phase-invariant. The results were predicted by a binocular contrast gain control model. The model involves monocular gain controls with interocular suppression from positive and negative phase channels, followed by summation across eyes and then across space. Importantly, this model--applied to conditions with vertical disparity--has only a single (zero) disparity channel and embodies both fusion and suppression processes within a single framework.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 8%
Unknown 22 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 21%
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Other 3 13%
Other 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 7 29%
Psychology 5 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 4 17%