Author
Listed:
- Daniel H Baker
- Greta Vilidaite
- Alex R Wade
Abstract
In the early visual system, suppression occurs between neurons representing different stimulus properties. This includes features such as orientation (cross-orientation suppression), eye-of-origin (interocular suppression) and spatial location (surround suppression), which are thought to involve distinct anatomical pathways. We asked if these separate routes to suppression can be differentiated by their pattern of gain control on the contrast response function measured in human participants using steady-state electroencephalography. Changes in contrast gain shift the contrast response function laterally, whereas changes in response gain scale the function vertically. We used a Bayesian hierarchical model to summarise the evidence for each type of gain control. A computational meta-analysis of 16 previous studies found the most evidence for contrast gain effects with overlaid masks, but no clear evidence favouring either response gain or contrast gain for other mask types. We then conducted two new experiments, comparing suppression from four mask types (monocular and dichoptic overlay masks, and aligned and orthogonal surround masks) on responses to sine wave grating patches flickering at 5Hz. At the occipital pole, there was strong evidence for contrast gain effects in all four mask types at the first harmonic frequency (5Hz). Suppression generally became stronger at more lateral electrode sites, but there was little evidence of response gain effects. At the second harmonic frequency (10Hz) suppression was stronger overall, and involved both contrast and response gain effects. Although suppression from different mask types involves distinct anatomical pathways, gain control processes appear to serve a common purpose, which we suggest might be to suppress less reliable inputs.Author summary: Suppression is a ubiquitous process in the brain that acts to regulate neural activity. In the visual system, there are multiple suppressive pathways, which normalize neural responses across dimensions such as spatial location, eye of origin, and feature (e.g. stimulus orientation). In this study we ask how we can characterise suppression from these different sources by examining the effect on the contrast response function (the function mapping the physical stimulus intensity to the neural response), measured using steady-state electroencephalography (EEG). Using a Bayesian computational model, we estimate the likely range of model parameter values summarising contributions from contrast gain (which shifts the contrast response function laterally) and response gain (which scales it vertically). A meta analysis of 16 previous studies provided inconclusive evidence, but generally supported a greater contribution from contrast gain control. Data from two new studies showed convincing effects of contrast gain control for four different mask types at the first harmonic (stimulus flicker frequency), and both contrast and response gain at the second harmonic (twice the flicker frequency). We discuss these findings in the context of work using other experimental methodologies, and speculate about the purpose of suppression in the nervous system.
Suggested Citation
Daniel H Baker & Greta Vilidaite & Alex R Wade, 2021.
"Steady-state measures of visual suppression,"
PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(10), pages 1-21, October.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1009507
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009507
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1009507. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.