Bruno G. Breitmeyer

The pulsed- and steady-pedestal paradigms were designed to track increment thresholds (ΔC) as a function of pedestal contrast (C) for the parvocellular (P) and magnocellular (M) systems, respectively. These paradigms produce contrasting results: linear relationships between ΔC and C are observed in the pulsed-pedestal paradigm, indicative of the P system’s processing, while the steady-pedestal paradigm reveals nonlinear functions, characteristic of the M system’s response. However, we recently found the P model fits better than the M model for both paradigms, using Gabor stimuli biased towards the M or P systems based on their sensitivity to color and spatial frequency. Here, we used two-square pedestals under green vs. red light in the lower-left vs. upper-right visual fields to bias processing towards the M vs. P system, respectively. Based on our previous findings, we predicted the following: (1) steeper ΔC vs. C functions with the pulsed than the steady pedestal due to different task demands; (2) lower ΔCs in the upper-right vs. lower-left quadrant due to its bias towards P-system processing there; (3) no effect of color, since both paradigms track the P-system; and, most importantly (4) contrast gain should not be higher for the steady than for the pulsed pedestal. In general, our predictions were confirmed, replicating our previous findings and providing further evidence questioning the general validity of using the pulsed- and steady-pedestal paradigms to differentiate the P and M systems.

It is our fortune that misperceptions of the world are very rare. Only in highly contrived laboratory settings do they occur regularly; or in very rare human cases do they show up consistently. Eit...

Using the prime–probe comparison paradigm, Jacob, Breitmeyer, and Treviño (2013) demonstrated that information processing in visual short-term memory (VSTM) proceeds through three stages: sensory visible persistence (SVP), nonvisible informational persistence (NIP), and visual working memory (VWM). To investigate the effect of increasing the memory load on these stages by using 1, 3, and 5 display items, measures of VSTM performance, including storage, storage-slopes, and scan-slopes, were obtained. Results again revealed three stages of VSTM processing, but with the NIP stage increasing in duration as memory load increased, suggesting a need, during the NIP stage, for transfer and encoding delays of information into VWM. Consistent with this, VSTM scan-slopes, in ms/item, were lowest during the first NIP stage, highest during the second NIP stage, and intermediate during the third, non-sensory VWM stage. The results also demonstrated a color-superiority effect, as all VSTM scan-slopes for color were lower than those for shape and as all VSTM storages for color are greater than those for shape, and the existence of systematic pair-wise correlations between all three measures of VSTM performance. These findings and their implications are related to other paradigms and methods used to investigate post-stimulus processing in VSTM.

In the White illusion, test bars colinear with an inducing grating’s darker bars appear lighter than when the same test bars are flanked by the inducing grating’s darker bars. We previously reported that the function relating illusion magnitude to the contrast of the illusion inducers changes from nearly linear to clearly nonlinear as one progresses from low-level sensory to high-level perceptual illusions. Here we investigate additionally how the White illusion depends on 1) the inducer grating’s contrast (0.00 – 0.96), 2) the contrast of the test bar (0.12, 0.26) and 3) location of the test bar (colinear, flanked). Observers were required to adjust the luminance of a comparison bar until it matched the test bar’s perceived lightness. We define the contrast-dependent changes of the illusion magnitude as the inducer’s contrast-response function (CRF). Based on prior findings pointing to the important roles of high-level perceptual effects (e.g., grouping, surface transparency) in modulating the White effect, we expected 1) that the CRF is nonlinear for both test-bar contrasts and for both test-bar locations, and 2) that the CRF shifts toward a higher inducer contrast when the test-bar contrast increased from 0.12 to 0.26. Additionally, variation of test bar location allowed us to see if the contribution of the colinear and flanked test bars to the White illusion were equal or not. Results confirmed our predictions and support prior findings indicating that the White illusion is not produced by low-level (e.g. lateral inhibitory, simultaneous-contrast) effects but instead relies on higher-level perceptual effects, thus implicating correspondingly higher-level cortical processing. Our results also showed that the colinear test bars contributed more strongly to the White illusion than the flanked test bars did.

To efficiently use its finite resources, the visual system selects for further processing only a subset of the rich sensory information. Visual masking and spatial attention control the information transfer from visual sensory-memory to visual short-term memory. There is still a debate whether these two processes operate independently or interact, with empirical evidence supporting both arguments. However, recent studies pointed out that earlier studies showing significant interactions between common-onset masking and attention suffered from ceiling and/or floor effects. Our review of previous studies reporting metacontrast-attention interactions revealed similar artifacts. Therefore, we investigated metacontrast-attention interactions by using an experimental paradigm, in which ceiling/floor effects were avoided. We also examined whether metacontrast masking is differently influenced by endogenous and exogenous attention. We analyzed mean absolute-magnitude of response-errors and their statistical distribution. When targets are masked, our results support the hypothesis that manipulations of the levels of metacontrast and of endogenous/exogenous attention have largely independent effects. Moreover, statistical modeling of the distribution of response-errors suggests weak interactions modulating the probability of “guessing” behavior for some observers in both types of attention. Nevertheless, our data suggest that any joint effect of attention and metacontrast can be adequately explained by their independent and additive contributions.

To efficiently use its finite resources, the visual system selects for further processing only a subset of the rich sensory information. Visual masking and spatial attention control the information transfer from visual sensory-memory to visual short-term memory. There is still a debate whether these two processes operate independently or interact, with empirical evidence supporting both arguments. However, recent studies pointed out that earlier studies showing significant interactions between common-onset masking and attention suffered from ceiling and/or floor effects. Our review of previous studies reporting metacontrast-attention interactions revealed similar artifacts. Therefore, we investigated metacontrast-attention interactions by using an experimental paradigm in which ceiling/floor effects were avoided. We also examined whether metacontrast masking is differently influenced by endogenous and exogenous attention. We analyzed mean absolute-magnitude of response-errors and their statistical distribution. Our results support the hypothesis that metacontrast and endogenous/exogenous attention are largely independent with negligible likelihood for interactions. Moreover, statistical modeling of the distribution of response-errors suggests weak interactions modulating the probability of “guessing” behavior for some observers in both types of attention. Nevertheless, our data suggest that any joint effect of attention and metacontrast can be adequately explained by their independent and additive contributions.

Many visual effects are believed to be processed at several functional and anatomical levels of cortical processing. Determining if and how the levels contribute differentially to these effects is a leading problem in visual perception and visual neuroscience. We review and analyze a combination of extant psychophysical findings in the context of neurophysiological and brain-imaging results. Specifically using findings relating to visual illusions, crowding, and masking as exemplary cases, we develop a theoretical rationale for showing how relative levels of cortical processing contributing to these effects can already be deduced from the psychophysically determined functions relating respectively the illusory, crowding and masking strengths to the contrast of the illusion inducers, of the flankers producing the crowding, and of the mask. The wider implications of this rationale show how it can help to settle or clarify theoretical and interpretive inconsistencies and how it can further psychophysical, brain-recording and brain-imaging research geared to explore the relative functional and cortical levels at which conscious and unconscious processing of visual information occur. Our approach also allows us to make some specific predictions for future studies, whose results will provide empirical tests of its validity.