Peeling Plaids Apart: Context Counteracts Cross-Orientation Contrast Masking

Article English OPEN
Freeman, E. D. ; Verghese, P. (2009)
  • Journal: PLoS ONE, volume 4, issue 12 (issn: 1932-6203, eissn: 1932-6203)
  • Related identifiers: pmc: PMC2780729, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008123
  • Subject: Neuroscience/Experimental Psychology | Q | R | Research Article | BF | Neuroscience/Sensory Systems | Science | Medicine | Neuroscience/Cognitive Neuroscience
    mesheuropmc: genetic structures

Background\ud Contrast discrimination for an image is usually harder if another image is superimposed on top. We asked whether such contrast masking may be enhanced or relieved depending on cues promoting integration of both images as a single pattern, versus segmentation into two independent components.\ud \ud Methodology & Principal Findings\ud Contrast discrimination thresholds for a foveal test grating were sharply elevated in the presence of a perfectly overlapping orthogonally-oriented mask grating. However thresholds returned to the unmasked baseline when a surround grating was added, having the same orientation and phase of either the test or mask grating. Both such masking and ‘unmasking’ effects were much stronger for moving than static stimuli.\ud \ud Conclusions & Significance\ud Our results suggest that common-fate motion reinforces the perception of a single coherent plaid pattern, while the surround helps to identify each component independently, thus peeling the plaid apart again. These results challenge current models of early vision, suggesting that higher-level surface organization influences contrast encoding, determining whether the contrast of a grating may be recovered independently from that of its mask.
  • References (50)
    50 references, page 1 of 5

    1. Foley JM (1994) Human luminance pattern-vision mechanisms: masking experiments require a new model. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 11: 1710-1719.

    2. Legge GE, Foley JM (1980) Contrast masking in human vision. J Opt Soc Am 70: 1458-1471.

    3. Petrov Y, Carandini M, McKee S (2005) Two distinct mechanisms of suppression in human vision. J Neurosci 25: 8704-8707.

    4. Ross J, Speed HD (1991) Contrast adaptation and contrast masking in human vision. Proc Biol Sci 246: 61-69.

    5. Snowden RJ, Hammett ST (1998) The effects of surround contrast on contrast thresholds, perceived contrast and contrast discrimination. Vision Res 38: 1935-1945.

    6. Olzak LA, Laurinen PI (2005) Contextual effects in fine spatial discriminations. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 22: 2230-2238.

    7. Mareschal I, Sceniak MP, Shapley RM (2001) Contextual influences on orientation discrimination: binding local and global cues. Vision Res 41: 1915-1930.

    8. Albright TD, Stoner GR (1995) Visual motion perception. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 92: 2433-2440.

    9. Wuerger S, Shapley R, Rubin N (1996) On the visually perceived direction of motion'' by Hans Wallach: 60 years later. Perception 25: 1317-1367.

    10. Adelson EH, Movshon JA (1982) Phenomenal coherence of moving visual patterns. Nature 300: 523-525.

  • Related Research Results (2)
  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark