Different rules for binocular combination of luminance flicker in cortical and subcortical pathways

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this paper, the interocular/binocular combination of temporal luminance modulations is studied. Binocular combination is of broad interest because it provides a remarkable case study of how the brain combines information from different sources. In addition, the mechanisms of binocular combination are of interest to vision scientists because they provide insight into when/where/how information from two eyes is combined.

This study focuses on how luminance flicker is combined across two eyes, extending previous work that focused mainly on spatial modulations. The results appear to show that temporal modulations are combined in different ways, with additional differences between subcortical and cortical pathways.

1. Main concern: subcortical and cortical pathways are assessed in quite different ways. On the one hand, this is a strength of the study (as it relies on unique ways of interrogating each pathway). However, this is also a problem when the results from two approaches are combined - leading to a sort of attribution problem: Are the differences due to actual differences between the cortical and subcortical binocular combinations, or are they perhaps differences due to different methods. For example, the results suggest that the subcortical binocular combination is nonlinear, but it is not clear where this nonlinearity occurs. If this occurs in the final phase that controls pupillary responses, it has quite different implications.

At the very least, this work should clearly discuss the limitations of using different methods to assess subcortical and cortical pathways.

2. Adding to the previous point, the paper needs to be a better job of justifying not only the specific methods but also other details of the study (e.g., why certain parameters were chosen). To illustrate, a semi-positive example: Only page 7 explains why 2Hz modulation was used, while the methods for 2Hz modulation are described in detail on page 3. No justifications are provided for most of the other experimental choices. The paper should be expanded to better explain this area of research to non-experts. A notable strength of this paper is that it should be of interest to those not working in this particular field, but this goal is not achieved if the paper is written for a specialist audience. In particular, the introduction should be expanded to better explain this area of research, the methods should include justifications for important empirical decisions, and the discussion should make the work more accessible again (in addition to addressing the issues raised in point 1 above). The results also need more context. For example, why EEG data have overtones but pupillometry does not?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Previous studies have extensively explored the rules by which patterned inputs from the two eyes are combined in the visual cortex. Here the authors explore these rules for un-patterned inputs (luminance flicker) at both the level of the cortex, using Steady-State Visual Evoked Potentials (SSVEPs) and at the sub-cortical level using pupillary responses. They find that the pattern of binocular combination differs between cortical and sub-cortical levels with the cortex showing less dichoptic masking and somewhat more binocular facilitation.

Importantly, the present results with flicker differ markedly from those with gratings (Hou et al., 2020, J Neurosci, Baker and Wade 2017 cerebral cortex, Norcia et al, 2000 Nuroreport, Brown et al., 1999, IOVS). When SSVEP responses are measured under dichoptic conditions where each eye is driven with a unique temporal frequency, in the case of grating stimuli, the magnitude of the response in the fixed contrast eye decreases as a function of contrast in the variable contrast eye. Here the response increases by varying (small) magnitudes. The authors favor a view that cortex and perception pool binocular flicker inputs approximately linearly using cells that are largely monocular. The lack of a decrease below the monocular level when modulation strength increase is taken to indicate that previously observed normalization mechanism in pattern vision does not play a substantial role in the processing of flicker. The authors present a computational model of binocular combination that captures features of the data when fit separately to each data set. Because the model has no frequency dependence and is based on scalar quantities, it cannot make joint predictions for the multiple experimental conditions which is one of its limitations.

A strength of the current work is the use of frequency-tagging of both pupil and EEG responses to measure responses for flicker stimuli at two anatomical levels of processing. Flicker responses are interesting but have been relatively neglected. The tagging approach allows one to access responses driven by each eye, even when the other eye is stimulated which is a great strength. The tagging approach can be applied at both levels of processing at the same time when stimulus frequencies are low, which is an advantage as they can be directly compared. The authors demonstrate the versatility of frequency tagging in a novel experimental design which may inspire other uses, both within the present context and others. A disadvantage of the tagging approach for studying sub-cortical dynamics via pupil responses is that it is restricted to low temporal frequencies given the temporal bandwidth of the pupil. The inclusion of a behavioral measure and a model is also a strength, but there are some limitations in the modeling (see below).

The authors suggest in the discussion that luminance flicker may preferentially drive cortical mechanisms that are largely monocular and in the results that they are approximately linear in the dichoptic cross condition (no effect of the fixed contrast stimulus in the other eye). By contrast, prior research using dichoptic dual frequency flickering stimuli has found robust intermodulation (IM) components in the VEP response spectrum (Baitch and Levi, 1988, Vision Res; Stevens et al., 1994 J Ped Ophthal Strab; France and Ver Hoeve, 1994, J Ped Ophthal Strab; Suter et al., 1996 Vis Neurosci). The presence of IM is a direct signature of binocular interaction and suggests that at least under some measurement conditions, binocular luminance combination is "essentially" non-linear, where essential implies a point-like non-linearity such as squaring of excitatory inputs. The two views are in striking contrast. It would thus be useful for the authors could show spectra for the dichoptic, two-frequency conditions to see if non-linear binocular IM components are present.

If the IM components are indeed absent, then there is a question of the generality of the conclusions, given that several previous studies have found them with dichoptic flicker. The previous studies differ from the authors' in terms of larger stimuli and in their use of higher temporal frequencies (e.g. 18/20 Hz, 17/21 Hz, 6/8 Hz). Either retinal area stimulated (periphery vs central field) or stimulus frequency (high vs low) could affect the results and thus the conclusions about the nature of dichoptic flicker processing in cortex. It would be interesting to sort this out as it may point the research in new directions.

Whether these components are present or absent is of interest in terms of the authors' computational model of binocular combination. It appears that the present model is based on scalar magnitudes, rather than vectors as in Baker and Wade (2017), so it would be silent on this point. The final summation of the separate eye inputs is linear in the model. In the first stage of the model, each eye's input is divided by a weighted input from the other eye. If we take this input as inhibitory, then IM would not emerge from this stage either.

Related to the model: One of the more striking results is the substantial difference between the dichoptic and dichoptic-cross conditions. They differ in that the latter has two different frequencies in the two eyes while the former has the same frequency in each eye. As it stands, if fit jointly on the two conditions, the model would make the same prediction for the dichoptic and dichoptic-cross conditions. It would also make the same prediction whether the two eyes were in-phase temporally or in anti-phase temporally. There is no frequency/phase-dependence in the model to explain differences in these cases or to potentially explain different patterns at the different VEP response harmonics. The model also fits independently to each data set which weakens its generality. An interpretation outside of the model framework would thus be helpful for the specific case of differences between the dichoptic and dichoptic-cross conditions.

Prior work has defined several regimes of binocular summation in the VEP (Apkarian et al.,1981 EEG Journal). It would be useful for the authors to relate the use of their terms "facilitation" and "suppression" to these regimes and to justify/clarify differences in usage, when present. Experiment 1, Fig. 3 shows cases where the binocular response is more than twice the monocular response. Here the interpretation is clear: the responses are super-additive and would be classed as involving facilitation in the Apkarian et al framework.

In the Apkarian et al framework, a ratio of 2 indicates independence/linearity. Ratios between 1 and 2 indicate sub-additivity and are diagnostic of the presence of binocular interaction but are noted by them to be difficult to interpret mechanistically. This should be discussed. A ratio of <1 indicates frank suppression which is not observed here with flicker.

Can the model explore the full range of binocular/monocular ratios in the Apkarian et al framework? I believe much of the data lies in the "partial summation" regime of Apkarian et al and that the model is mainly exploring this regime and is a way of quantifying varying degrees of partial summation.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This manuscript describes interesting experiments on how information from the two eyes is combined in cortical areas, sub-cortical areas, and perception. The experimental techniques are strong and the results are potentially quite interesting. But the manuscript is poorly written and tries to do too much in too little space. I had a lot of difficulty understanding the various experimental conditions, the complicated results, and the interpretations of those results. I think this is an interesting and useful project so I hope the authors will put in the time to revise the manuscript so that regular readers like myself can better understand what it all means.

Now for my concerns and suggestions:

The experimental conditions are novel and complicated, so readers will not readily grasp what the various conditions are and why they were chosen. For example, in one condition different flicker frequencies were presented to the two eyes (2Hz to one and 1.6Hz to the other) with the flicker amplitude fixed in the eye presented to the lower frequency and the flicker amplitude varied in the eye presented to the higher frequency. This is just one of several conditions that the reader has to understand in order to follow the experimental design. I have a few suggestions to make it easier to follow. First, create a figure showing graphically the various conditions. Second, come up with better names for the various conditions and use those names in clear labels in the data figures and in the appropriate captions. Third, combine the specific methods and results sections for each experiment so that one will have just gone through the relevant methods before moving forward into the results. The authors can keep a general methods section separate, but only for the methods that are general to the whole set of experiments.

I wondered why the authors chose the temporal frequencies they did. Barrionuevo et al (2014) showed that the human pupil response is greatest at 1Hz and is nearly a log unit lower at 2Hz (i.e., the change in diameter is nearly a log unit lower; the change in area is nearly 2 log units lower). So why did the authors choose 2Hz for their primary frequency? And why did the authors choose 1.6Hz which is quite close to 2Hz for their off frequency? The rationale behind these important decisions should be made explicit.

By the way, I wondered if we know what happens when you present the same flicker frequencies to the two eyes but in counter-phase. The average luminance seen binocularly would always be the same, so if the pupil system is linear, there should be no pupil response to this stimulus. An experiment like this has been done by Flitcroft et al (1992) on accommodation where the two eyes are presented stimuli moving oppositely in optical distance and indeed there was no accommodative response, which strongly suggests linearity.

Figures 1 and 2 are important figures because they show the pupil and EEG results, respectively. But it's really hard to get your head around what's being shown in the lower row of each figure. The labeling for the conditions is one problem. You have to remember how "binocular" in panel c differs from "binocular cross" in panel d. And how "monocular" in panel d is different than "monocular 1.6Hz" in panel e. Additionally, the colors of the data symbols are not very distinct so it makes it hard to determine which one is which condition. These results are interesting. But they are difficult to digest.

The authors make a strong claim that they have found substantial differences in binocular interaction between cortical and sub-cortical circuits. But when I look at Figures 1 and 2, which are meant to convey this conclusion, I'm struck by how similar the results are. If the authors want to continue to make their claim, they need to spend more time making the case.

Figure 5 is thankfully easy to understand and shows a very clear result. These perceptual results deviate dramatically from the essentially winner-take-all results for spatial sinewaves shown by Legge & Rubin (1981); whom they should cite by the way. Thus, very interestingly the binocular combination of temporal variation is quite different than the binocular combination of spatial variation. Can the pupil and EEG results also be plotted in the fashion of Figure 5? You'd pick a criterion pupil (or EEG) change and use it to make such plots.

My main suggestion is that the authors need to devote more space to explaining what they've done, what they've found, and how they interpret the data. I suggest therefore that they drop the computational model altogether so that they can concentrate on the experiments. The model could be presented in a future paper.