Binocular fusion, suppression and diplopia for blurred edges

Mark A. Georgeson, Stuart A. Wallis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: (1) To devise a model-based method for estimating the probabilities of binocular fusion, interocular suppression and diplopia from psychophysical judgements, (2) To map out the way fusion, suppression and diplopia vary with binocular disparity and blur of single edges shown to each eye, (3) To compare the binocular interactions found for edges of the same vs opposite contrast polarity. Methods: Test images were single, horizontal, Gaussian-blurred edges, with blur B = 1-32 min arc, and vertical disparity 0-8.B, shown for 200 ms. In the main experiment, observers reported whether they saw one central edge, one offset edge, or two edges. We argue that the relation between these three response categories and the three perceptual states (fusion, suppression, diplopia) is indirect and likely to be distorted by positional noise and criterion effects, and so we developed a descriptive, probabilistic model to estimate both the perceptual states and the noise/criterion parameters from the data. Results: (1) Using simulated data, we validated the model-based method by showing that it recovered fairly accurately the disparity ranges for fusion and suppression, (2) The disparity range for fusion (Panum's limit) increased greatly with blur, in line with previous studies. The disparity range for suppression was similar to the fusion limit at large blurs, but two or three times the fusion limit at small blurs. This meant that diplopia was much more prevalent at larger blurs, (3) Diplopia was much more frequent when the two edges had opposite contrast polarity. A formal comparison of models indicated that fusion occurs for same, but not opposite, polarities. Probability of suppression was greater for unequal contrasts, and it was always the lower-contrast edge that was suppressed. Conclusions: Our model-based data analysis offers a useful tool for probing binocular fusion and suppression psychophysically. The disparity range for fusion increased with edge blur but fell short of complete scale-invariance. The disparity range for suppression also increased with blur but was not close to scale-invariance. Single vision occurs through fusion, but also beyond the fusion range, through suppression. Thus suppression can serve as a mechanism for extending single vision to larger disparities, but mainly for sharper edges where the fusion range is small (5-10 min arc). For large blurs the fusion range is so much larger that no such extension may be needed.

LanguageEnglish
Pages163-185
Number of pages23
JournalOphthalmic and Physiological Optics
Volume34
Issue number2
Early online date29 Jan 2014
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2014

Fingerprint

Diplopia
Noise
Vision Disparity
Statistical Models

Bibliographical note

© 2014 The Authors Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics © 2014 The College of Optometrists. Creative Commons Attribution license (CC-BY).

This work was funded by the BBSRC(UK); grant number BB/H00159X/1.

Keywords

  • binocular fusion
  • blur
  • contrast polarity
  • diplopia
  • disparity
  • edges
  • interocular suppression

Cite this

@article{d1821f4d04ea4071916d137554cbd7f3,
title = "Binocular fusion, suppression and diplopia for blurred edges",
abstract = "Purpose: (1) To devise a model-based method for estimating the probabilities of binocular fusion, interocular suppression and diplopia from psychophysical judgements, (2) To map out the way fusion, suppression and diplopia vary with binocular disparity and blur of single edges shown to each eye, (3) To compare the binocular interactions found for edges of the same vs opposite contrast polarity. Methods: Test images were single, horizontal, Gaussian-blurred edges, with blur B = 1-32 min arc, and vertical disparity 0-8.B, shown for 200 ms. In the main experiment, observers reported whether they saw one central edge, one offset edge, or two edges. We argue that the relation between these three response categories and the three perceptual states (fusion, suppression, diplopia) is indirect and likely to be distorted by positional noise and criterion effects, and so we developed a descriptive, probabilistic model to estimate both the perceptual states and the noise/criterion parameters from the data. Results: (1) Using simulated data, we validated the model-based method by showing that it recovered fairly accurately the disparity ranges for fusion and suppression, (2) The disparity range for fusion (Panum's limit) increased greatly with blur, in line with previous studies. The disparity range for suppression was similar to the fusion limit at large blurs, but two or three times the fusion limit at small blurs. This meant that diplopia was much more prevalent at larger blurs, (3) Diplopia was much more frequent when the two edges had opposite contrast polarity. A formal comparison of models indicated that fusion occurs for same, but not opposite, polarities. Probability of suppression was greater for unequal contrasts, and it was always the lower-contrast edge that was suppressed. Conclusions: Our model-based data analysis offers a useful tool for probing binocular fusion and suppression psychophysically. The disparity range for fusion increased with edge blur but fell short of complete scale-invariance. The disparity range for suppression also increased with blur but was not close to scale-invariance. Single vision occurs through fusion, but also beyond the fusion range, through suppression. Thus suppression can serve as a mechanism for extending single vision to larger disparities, but mainly for sharper edges where the fusion range is small (5-10 min arc). For large blurs the fusion range is so much larger that no such extension may be needed.",
keywords = "binocular fusion, blur, contrast polarity, diplopia, disparity, edges, interocular suppression",
author = "Georgeson, {Mark A.} and Wallis, {Stuart A.}",
note = "{\circledC} 2014 The Authors Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics {\circledC} 2014 The College of Optometrists. Creative Commons Attribution license (CC-BY). This work was funded by the BBSRC(UK); grant number BB/H00159X/1.",
year = "2014",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1111/opo.12108",
language = "English",
volume = "34",
pages = "163--185",
journal = "Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics",
issn = "0275-5408",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

Binocular fusion, suppression and diplopia for blurred edges. / Georgeson, Mark A.; Wallis, Stuart A.

In: Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, Vol. 34, No. 2, 03.2014, p. 163-185.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Binocular fusion, suppression and diplopia for blurred edges

AU - Georgeson, Mark A.

AU - Wallis, Stuart A.

N1 - © 2014 The Authors Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics © 2014 The College of Optometrists. Creative Commons Attribution license (CC-BY). This work was funded by the BBSRC(UK); grant number BB/H00159X/1.

PY - 2014/3

Y1 - 2014/3

N2 - Purpose: (1) To devise a model-based method for estimating the probabilities of binocular fusion, interocular suppression and diplopia from psychophysical judgements, (2) To map out the way fusion, suppression and diplopia vary with binocular disparity and blur of single edges shown to each eye, (3) To compare the binocular interactions found for edges of the same vs opposite contrast polarity. Methods: Test images were single, horizontal, Gaussian-blurred edges, with blur B = 1-32 min arc, and vertical disparity 0-8.B, shown for 200 ms. In the main experiment, observers reported whether they saw one central edge, one offset edge, or two edges. We argue that the relation between these three response categories and the three perceptual states (fusion, suppression, diplopia) is indirect and likely to be distorted by positional noise and criterion effects, and so we developed a descriptive, probabilistic model to estimate both the perceptual states and the noise/criterion parameters from the data. Results: (1) Using simulated data, we validated the model-based method by showing that it recovered fairly accurately the disparity ranges for fusion and suppression, (2) The disparity range for fusion (Panum's limit) increased greatly with blur, in line with previous studies. The disparity range for suppression was similar to the fusion limit at large blurs, but two or three times the fusion limit at small blurs. This meant that diplopia was much more prevalent at larger blurs, (3) Diplopia was much more frequent when the two edges had opposite contrast polarity. A formal comparison of models indicated that fusion occurs for same, but not opposite, polarities. Probability of suppression was greater for unequal contrasts, and it was always the lower-contrast edge that was suppressed. Conclusions: Our model-based data analysis offers a useful tool for probing binocular fusion and suppression psychophysically. The disparity range for fusion increased with edge blur but fell short of complete scale-invariance. The disparity range for suppression also increased with blur but was not close to scale-invariance. Single vision occurs through fusion, but also beyond the fusion range, through suppression. Thus suppression can serve as a mechanism for extending single vision to larger disparities, but mainly for sharper edges where the fusion range is small (5-10 min arc). For large blurs the fusion range is so much larger that no such extension may be needed.

AB - Purpose: (1) To devise a model-based method for estimating the probabilities of binocular fusion, interocular suppression and diplopia from psychophysical judgements, (2) To map out the way fusion, suppression and diplopia vary with binocular disparity and blur of single edges shown to each eye, (3) To compare the binocular interactions found for edges of the same vs opposite contrast polarity. Methods: Test images were single, horizontal, Gaussian-blurred edges, with blur B = 1-32 min arc, and vertical disparity 0-8.B, shown for 200 ms. In the main experiment, observers reported whether they saw one central edge, one offset edge, or two edges. We argue that the relation between these three response categories and the three perceptual states (fusion, suppression, diplopia) is indirect and likely to be distorted by positional noise and criterion effects, and so we developed a descriptive, probabilistic model to estimate both the perceptual states and the noise/criterion parameters from the data. Results: (1) Using simulated data, we validated the model-based method by showing that it recovered fairly accurately the disparity ranges for fusion and suppression, (2) The disparity range for fusion (Panum's limit) increased greatly with blur, in line with previous studies. The disparity range for suppression was similar to the fusion limit at large blurs, but two or three times the fusion limit at small blurs. This meant that diplopia was much more prevalent at larger blurs, (3) Diplopia was much more frequent when the two edges had opposite contrast polarity. A formal comparison of models indicated that fusion occurs for same, but not opposite, polarities. Probability of suppression was greater for unequal contrasts, and it was always the lower-contrast edge that was suppressed. Conclusions: Our model-based data analysis offers a useful tool for probing binocular fusion and suppression psychophysically. The disparity range for fusion increased with edge blur but fell short of complete scale-invariance. The disparity range for suppression also increased with blur but was not close to scale-invariance. Single vision occurs through fusion, but also beyond the fusion range, through suppression. Thus suppression can serve as a mechanism for extending single vision to larger disparities, but mainly for sharper edges where the fusion range is small (5-10 min arc). For large blurs the fusion range is so much larger that no such extension may be needed.

KW - binocular fusion

KW - blur

KW - contrast polarity

KW - diplopia

KW - disparity

KW - edges

KW - interocular suppression

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84894272243&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/opo.12108

DO - 10.1111/opo.12108

M3 - Article

VL - 34

SP - 163

EP - 185

JO - Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics

T2 - Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics

JF - Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics

SN - 0275-5408

IS - 2

ER -