Search bioRxivSearch

Biology subjects

Read, J. C. A.

Publications and source records attributed to Read, J. C. A..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

A stimulus artefact undermines the evidence for independent ON and OFF channels in stereopsis

Early vision proceeds through distinct ON and OFF channels, which encode luminance increments and decrements respectively. It has been argued that these channels also contribute separately to stereoscopic vision. This is based on the fact that observers perform better on a noisy disparity discrimination task when the stimulus is a random-dot pattern consisting of equal numbers of black and white dots (a \"mixed-polarity stimulus\", argued to activate both ON and OFF stereo channels), than when it consists of all-white or all-black dots (\"same-polarity\", argued to activate only one). However, it is not clear how this theory can be reconciled with our current understanding of disparity encoding. Recently, a binocular convolutional neural network was able to replicate the mixed-polarity advantage shown by human observers, even though it was based on linear filters and contained no mechanisms which would respond separately to black or white dots. Here, we show that the stimuli used in all these experiments contain a subtle artefact. The interocular correlation between left and right images is actually lower for the same-polarity stimuli than for mixed-polarity stimuli with the same amount of disparity noise applied to the dots. Since our current theories suggest stereopsis is based on a correlation-like computation in primary visual cortex, it is then unsurprising that performance was better for the mixed-polarity stimuli. We conclude that there is currently no evidence supporting separate ON and OFF channels in stereopsis.

neuroscience

When invisible noise obscures the signal: the consequences of nonlinearity in motion detection

1The motion energy model is the standard account of motion detection in animals from beetles to humans. Despite this common basis, we show here that a difference in the early stages of visual processing between mammals and insects leads this model to make radically different behavioural predictions. In insects, early filtering is spatially lowpass, which makes the surprising prediction that motion detection can be impaired by \"invisible\" noise, i.e. noise at a spatial frequency that elicits no response when presented on its own as a signal. We confirm this prediction using the optomotor response of praying mantis Sphodromantis lineola. This does not occur in mammals, where spatially bandpass early filtering means that linear systems techniques, such as deriving channel sensitivity from masking functions, remain approximately valid. Counter-intuitive effects such as masking by invisible noise may occur in neural circuits wherever a nonlinearity is followed by a difference operation.

neuroscience