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

Timothy S. Meese*, Robert F. Hess

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

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° 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. © 2004 ARVO.

Original languageEnglish
Article number2
Pages (from-to)843-859
Number of pages17
JournalJournal of Vision
Volume4
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 18 Oct 2004

Fingerprint

Masks
Noise

Bibliographical note

Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License

Keywords

  • dichoptic masking
  • human vision
  • interocular suppression
  • lateral interactions
  • multiplicative noise

Cite this

@article{21447e5a64744d8ebd399d5bdde22466,
title = "Low spatial frequencies are suppressively masked across spatial scale, orientation, field position, and eye of origin",
abstract = "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° 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. {\circledC} 2004 ARVO.",
keywords = "dichoptic masking, human vision, interocular suppression, lateral interactions, multiplicative noise",
author = "Meese, {Timothy S.} and Hess, {Robert F.}",
note = "Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License",
year = "2004",
month = "10",
day = "18",
doi = "10.1167/4.10.2",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
pages = "843--859",
journal = "Journal of Vision",
issn = "1534-7362",
publisher = "Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology Inc.",
number = "10",

}

Low spatial frequencies are suppressively masked across spatial scale, orientation, field position, and eye of origin. / Meese, Timothy S.; Hess, Robert F.

In: Journal of Vision, Vol. 4, No. 10, 2, 18.10.2004, p. 843-859.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Low spatial frequencies are suppressively masked across spatial scale, orientation, field position, and eye of origin

AU - Meese, Timothy S.

AU - Hess, Robert F.

N1 - Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License

PY - 2004/10/18

Y1 - 2004/10/18

N2 - 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° 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. © 2004 ARVO.

AB - 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° 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. © 2004 ARVO.

KW - dichoptic masking

KW - human vision

KW - interocular suppression

KW - lateral interactions

KW - multiplicative noise

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=9644297209&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.journalofvision.org/content/4/10/2.full

U2 - 10.1167/4.10.2

DO - 10.1167/4.10.2

M3 - Article

C2 - 15595890

VL - 4

SP - 843

EP - 859

JO - Journal of Vision

JF - Journal of Vision

SN - 1534-7362

IS - 10

M1 - 2

ER -