Our forward-facing eyes allow us the advantage of binocular visual information: using the tiny differences between right and left eye views to learn about depth and location in three dimensions. Our visual systems also contain specialized mechanisms to detect motion-in-depth from binocular vision, but the nature of these mechanisms remains controversial. Binocular motion-in-depth perception could theoretically be based on first detecting binocular disparity and then monitoring how it changes over time. The alternative is to monitor the motion in the right and left eye separately and then compare these motion signals. Here we used an individual differences approach to test whether the two sources of information are processed via dissociated mechanisms, and to measure the relative importance of those mechanisms. Our results suggest the existence of two distinct mechanisms, each contributing to the perception of motion-in-depth in most observers. Additionally, for the first time, we demonstrate the relative prevalence of the two mechanisms within a normal population. In general, visual systems appear to rely mostly on the mechanism sensitive to changing binocular disparity, but perception of motion-in-depth is augmented by the presence of a less sensitive mechanism that uses interocular velocity differences. Occasionally, we find observers with the opposite pattern of sensitivity. More generally this work showcases the power of the individual differences approach in studying the functional organization of cognitive systems.

The processing of visual information by the nervous system requires significant metabolic resources. To minimize the energy needed, our visual system appears to be optimized to encode typical natural images as efficiently as possible. One consequence of this is that some atypical images will produce inefficient, non-optimal responses. Here, we show that images that are reported to be uncomfortable to view, and that can trigger migraine attacks and epileptic seizures, produce relatively non-sparse responses in a model of the primary visual cortex. In comparison with the responses to typical inputs, responses to aversive images were larger and less sparse. We propose that this difference in the neural population response may be one cause of visual discomfort in the general population, and can produce more extreme responses in clinical populations such as migraine and epilepsy sufferers.

Background: Migraine is a common neurological condition that often involves differences in visual processing. These sensory processing differences provide important information about the underlying causes of the condition, and for the development of treatments. Review of psychophysical literature: Psychophysical experiments have shown consistent impairments in contrast sensitivity, orientation acuity, and the perception of global form and motion. They have also established that the addition of task-irrelevant visual noise has a greater effect, and that surround suppression, masking and adaptation are all stronger in migraine. Theoretical signal processing model: We propose utilising an established model of visual processing, based on signal processing theory, to account for the behavioural differences seen in migraine. This has the advantage of precision and clarity, and generating clear, falsifiable predictions. Conclusion: Increased effects of noise and differences in excitation and inhibition can account for the differences in migraine visual perception. Consolidating existing research and creating a unified, defined theoretical account is needed to better understand the disorder.

Migraine is among the most common and debilitating neurological disorders typically affecting people of working age. It is characterised by a unilateral, pulsating headache often associated with severe pain. Despite the intensive research, there is still little understanding of the pathophysiology of migraine. At the electrophysiological level, altered oscillatory parameters have been reported within the alpha and gamma bands. At the molecular level, altered glutamate and GABA concentrations have been reported. However, there has been little cross-talk between these lines of research. Thus, the relationship between oscillatory activity and neurotransmitter concentrations remains to be empirically traced. Importantly, how these indices link back to altered sensory processing has to be clearly established as yet. Accordingly, pharmacologic treatments have been mostly symptom-based, and yet sometimes proving ineffective in resolving pain or related issues. This review provides an integrative theoretical framework of excitation–inhibition imbalance for the understanding of current evidence and to address outstanding questions concerning the pathophysiology of migraine. We propose the use of computational modelling for the rigorous formulation of testable hypotheses on mechanisms of homeostatic imbalance and for the development of mechanism-based pharmacological treatments and neurostimulation interventions.

Virtual Reality (VR) experienced through head-mounted displays often leads to vection, discomfort and sway in the user. This study investigated the effect of motion direction and eccentricity on these three phenomena using optic flow patterns displayed using the Valve Index. Visual motion stimuli were presented in the centre, periphery or far periphery and moved either in depth (back and forth) or laterally (left and right). Overall vection was stronger for motion in depth compared to lateral motion. Additionally, eccentricity primarily affected stimuli moving in depth with stronger vection for more peripherally presented motion patterns compared to more central ones. Motion direction affected the various aspects of VR sickness differently and modulated the effect of eccentricity on VR sickness. For stimuli moving in depth far peripheral presentation caused more discomfort, whereas for lateral motion the central stimuli caused more discomfort. Stimuli moving in depth led to more head movements in the anterior–posterior direction when the entire visual field was stimulated. Observers demonstrated more head movements in the anterior–posterior direction compared to the medio-lateral direction throughout the entire experiment independent of motion direction or eccentricity of the presented moving stimulus. Head movements were elicited on the same plane as the moving stimulus only for stimuli moving in depth covering the entire visual field. A correlation showed a positive relationship between dizziness and vection duration and between general discomfort and sway. Identifying where in the visual field motion presented to an individual causes the least amount of VR sickness without losing vection and presence can guide development for Virtual Reality games, training and treatment programmes.