Biomedical subjects

Chris L E Paffen

Publications and source records attributed to Chris L E Paffen.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Time dilation in dynamic visual display.

How does the brain estimate time? This old question has led to many biological and psychological models of time perception (R. A. Block, 1989; P. Fraisse, 1963; J. Gibbon, 1977; D. L. I. Zakay, 1989). Because time cannot be directly measured at a given moment, it has been proposed that the brain estimates time based on the number of changes in an event (S. W. Brown, 1995; P. Fraisse, 1963; W. D. Poynter, 1989). Consistent with this idea, dynamic visual stimuli are known to lengthen perceived time (J. F. Brown, 1931; S. Goldstone & W. T. Lhamon, 1974; W. T. Lhamon & S. Goldstone, 1974, C. O. Z. Roelofs & W. P. C. Zeeman, 1951). However, the kind of information that constitutes the basis for time perception remains unresolved. Here, we show that the temporal frequency of a stimulus serves as the "clock" for perceived duration. Other aspects of changes, such as speed or coherence, were found to be inconsequential. Time dilation saturated at a temporal frequency of 4-8 Hz. These results suggest that the clock governing perceived time has its basis at early processing stages. The possible links between models of time perception and neurophysiological functions of early visual areas are discussed.

Acceleration↗

PubMed2006

Attention speeds binocular rivalry.

During binocular rivalry, incompatible images presented dichoptically compete for perceptual dominance. It has long been debated whether binocular rivalry can be controlled by attention. Most studies have shown that voluntary control over binocular rivalry is limited. We sought to remove attention from binocular rivalry by presenting a concurrent task. Diverting attention slowed the rivalry alternation rate, and did so in proportion to the difficulty of the concurrent task. Even a very demanding distractor task, however, did not arrest rivalry alternations completely. Given that diverting attention was equivalent to lowering the contrast of the rival stimuli, the ability of attention to speed binocular rivalry is most likely due to an increase in the effective contrast of the stimuli through boosting the gain of the cortical response. This increase in effective contrast will ultimately lead to a perceptual switch, thereby limiting voluntary control. Thus, attention speeds rivalry alternations, but has no inherent control over the rivalry process.

Attention↗

PubMed2005

Adaptive center-surround interactions in human vision revealed during binocular rivalry.

We used binocular rivalry as a psychophysical probe to explore center-surround interactions in orientation, motion and color processing. Addition of the surround matching one of the rival targets dramatically altered rivalry dynamics. For all visual sub-modalities tested, predominance of the high-contrast rival target matched to the surround was greatly reduced-a result that disappeared at low contrast. At low contrast, addition of the surround boosted dominance of orientation and motion targets matched to the surround. This contrast-dependent modulation of center-surround interactions seems to be a general property of the visual system and may reflect an adaptive balance between surround suppression and spatial summation.

Color Perception↗

PubMed2005

Center-surround inhibition and facilitation as a function of size and contrast at multiple levels of visual motion processing.

Visual context often plays a crucial role in visual processing. In the domain of visual motion processing, the response to a stimulus presented to a neuron's classical receptive field can be modulated by presenting stimuli to its surround. The nature of these center-surround interactions is often inhibitory; the neural response decreases when the same direction of motion is presented to center and surround. Here we use binocular rivalry as a tool to study center-surround interactions. We show that magnitude of surround suppression varies as a function of luminance contrast and surround width. Increasing the size of surround motion increased surround suppression at high contrast. Furthermore, large, high-contrast surrounds facilitated opposite-direction motion in the center. For stimuli presented at low contrast, surround suppression peaked at a smaller surround width. In addition, we provide evidence that surround inhibition occurs at multiple levels of visual processing: Surround inhibition in motion processing is likely to originate from both monocular and binocular processing stages.

Contrast Sensitivity↗

PubMed2005

Center-surround inhibition deepens binocular rivalry suppression.

When dissimilar stimuli are presented to each eye, perception alternates between both images--a phenomenon known as binocular rivalry. It has been shown that stimuli presented in proximity of rival targets modulate the time each target is perceptually dominant. For example, presenting motion to the region surrounding the rival targets decreases the predominance of the same-direction target. Here, using a stationary concentric grating rivaling with a drifting grating, we show that a drifting surround grating also increases the depth of binocular rivalry suppression, as measured by sensitivity to a speed discrimination probe on the rival grating. This was especially so when the surround moved in the same direction as the grating, and was slightly weaker for opposed directions. Suppression in both cases was deeper than a no-surround control condition. We hypothesize that surround suppression often observed in area MT (V5)-a visual area implicated in visual motion perception-is responsible for this increase in suppression. In support of this hypothesis, monocular and binocular surrounds were both effective in increasing suppression depth, as were surrounds contralateral to the probed eye. Static and orthogonal motion surrounds failed to add to the depth of rivalry suppression. These results implicate a higher-level, fully binocular area whose surround inhibition provides an additional source of suppression which sums with rivalry suppression to effectively deepen suppression of an unseen rival target.

Humans↗

PubMed2004

Center-surround interactions in visual motion processing during binocular rivalry.

When each eye is confronted with a dissimilar stimulus, the percept will generally alternate between the two. This phenomenon is known as binocular rivalry. Although binocular rivalry occurs at locations where targets overlap spatially, the area surrounding rivalrous targets can modulate their dominance. Here we show that during binocular rivalry of oppositely moving gratings, a surrounding grating moving in the same direction as one of the two leads to increased dominance of the opposite direction of motion in the center. This increased dominance of the opposite direction in the center was observed irrespective of the eye to which the surround was presented. Inspection of the results for different conditions reveals that the preference for the opposite direction of motion cannot be explained by a single mechanism operating beyond binocular fusion. We therefore suggest that this phenomenon is the outcome of center-surround interactions at multiple levels along the pathway of visual motion processing.

Contrast Sensitivity↗

PubMed2004

Blindness to inconsistent local signals in motion transparency from oscillating dots.

Visual processing involves hierarchical stages in which local features are initially analyzed and subsequently grouped into objects and surfaces. In the domain of motion perception, transparent motion has been used as a powerful tool to investigate the mechanisms underlying the grouping of local features. Here, we report a novel way of creating motion transparency from oscillating dots (MTOD). In this stimulus, individual dots move back and forth over a small distance. When the dots are oscillating in synchrony, global surfaces are also perceived as moving back and forth. However, when the oscillation desynchronizes, the percept turns into two moving surfaces that are sliding over each other continuously (streaming motion). The percept of MTOD is similar to conventional transparent motion, where individual dots move only in one direction. Also, when streaming motion is perceived, the detection of oscillation is impaired. This blindness to the oscillation becomes stronger, as the signal strength for the streaming motion is increased. These findings suggest that when global visual representations are constructed, weak and inconsistent local signals are discarded.

Humans↗