Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Vision Res. 2015 Jan 30;118:70–82. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2015.01.009

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Schematic showing that the suppression of congruent rate (right panels in A– D) could reflect two independent processes: a suppression of the overall fixational saccade rate (left panels) and a change in the fraction of congruent fixational saccades (middle panels) as a function of parafoveal contrast. Center matrix, all possible combinations of fraction and rate models. Gray arrows indicate corresponding model in the matrix. A. DC Rate and Different Fraction. Gray, parafoveal stimulus alone. Cyan, parafoveal stimuli paired with a peripheral stimulus. A subtractive suppression of the overall rate (left), and an increasing fraction as a function of parafoveal contrast (with a shallower slope for the parafoveal+peripheral condition; middle), correspond to a subtractive+divisive suppression of the congruent rate (right). B. Same Rate and Different Fraction. No suppression of the overall rate, and an increasing fraction as a function of parafoveal contrast (with a shallower slope for the parafoveal+peripheral condition), correspond to a purely divisive suppression of the congruent rate. C. DC Rate and Same Fraction. A subtractive suppression of the overall rate, and an increasing fraction as a function of parafoveal contrast (same for both stimulus configurations), correspond to a subtractive+divisive suppression of the congruent rate. D. Different Rate and DC Fraction. A subtractive suppression of the overall rate, and a constant fraction as a function of parafoveal contrast, correspond to a purely subtractive suppression of the congruent rate.