Abstract

It is hypothesized that a steady light in one eye will lower or inhibit the critical rate (CFF) of contralateral intermittent flashes of light in a manner consonant with the effect of an adapting field on the discrimination of single flashes. Luminances spanning a 6-log-unit range were variously combined in two 1.5° fields. Results indicate that there is an inhibitory effect which depends in part on relative luminances: except with very dim stimuli, an adapting light dimmer than a given flicker light reduces CFF somewhat; and CFF decreases progressively as adapting luminance increases. Viewed with bright adapting light, a moderately bright flicker field shows a 10–20% reduction in CFF and a dim flicker light (whose CFF is 8 cps or less) shows a 100% reduction in CFF. However, the data, when plotted in a Δ<i>I</i>/<i>I</i> format, show only partial similarity to curves of steady-field and single-flash luminance discrimination. Moreover, the upper limb in each of the family of binocular CFF-log <i>I</i> curves, in which adapting luminance is the parameter, parallels the monocular curve and may be fitted to a similar exponential equation.

PDF Article

References

  • View by:
  • |
  • |

  1. C. S. Sherrington, The Integrative Action of the Nervous System (Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, 1923), 7th printing, Lecture X, p. 354.
  2. C. H. Baker and E. A. Bott, Can. J. Psychol. 5, 9 (1951).
  3. F. H. Ireland, J. Exptl. Psychol. 40, 282 (1950).
  4. F. H. Perrin, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 44, 60 (1954).
  5. G. Thomas, Am. J. Psychol. 68, 37 (1955).
  6. G. Thomas, Am. J. Psychol. 67, 632 (1954).
  7. B. S. Lipkin, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 52, 1296 (1962).
  8. Tables of data for all conditions for both subjects are to be found in "Monocular Critical Flicker Fusion as a Function of the Area and Intensity of a Contralateral Steady Light" which may be obtained from University Microfilms Inc., 313 No. First St., Ann Arbor, Michigan, order number 62–92.
  9. C. Berger, Acta Physiol. Scand. 31, 161 (1954).
  10. H. Ripps and I. T. Kaplan, J. Exptl. Psychol. 60, 255 (1960).
  11. R. J. Lythgoe and K. Tansley, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) B105, 60 (1929).
  12. F. A. Geldard, J. Gen. Psychol. 7, 185 (1932).
  13. C. H. Graham and R. Granit, Am. J. Physiol. 98, 664 (1931).
  14. G. A. Fry and S. H. Bartley, J. Exptl. Psychol. 19, 351 (1936).
  15. E. G. Heinemana, J. Exptl. Psychol. 50, 89 (1955).
  16. A. L. Diamond, J. Exptl. Psychol. 50, 144 (1955).
  17. H. Liebowitz, F. A. Mote, and W. R. Thurlow, J. Exptl. Psychol. 46, 453(1953).
  18. M. Alpern, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 43, 648 (1953).
  19. C. H. Graham and E. H. Kemp, J. Gen. Physiol. 21, 635 (1938).
  20. J. R. Smith, J. Gen. Psychol. 14, 318 (1936).
  21. Fechner's paradox refers to a binocular phenomenon, in which a dim light does not add to the apparent brightness of a brighter light in the other eye, but instead diminishes its effectiveness. This was demonstrated by De Silva and Bartley for steady luminances [Brit. J. Psychol. 20, 241 (1930)]. The concept has been extended to mean that the net binocular interaction is an averaging of the two brightnesses.
  22. H. K. Hartline and F. Ratliff, J. Gen. Physiol. 40, 357 (1957).
  23. D. H. Hubel and T. N. Weisel, J. Physiol. (London) 148, 574 (1959).

Alpern, M.

M. Alpern, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 43, 648 (1953).

Baker, C. H.

C. H. Baker and E. A. Bott, Can. J. Psychol. 5, 9 (1951).

Bartley, S. H.

G. A. Fry and S. H. Bartley, J. Exptl. Psychol. 19, 351 (1936).

Berger, C.

C. Berger, Acta Physiol. Scand. 31, 161 (1954).

Bott, E. A.

C. H. Baker and E. A. Bott, Can. J. Psychol. 5, 9 (1951).

Diamond, A. L.

A. L. Diamond, J. Exptl. Psychol. 50, 144 (1955).

Fry, G. A.

G. A. Fry and S. H. Bartley, J. Exptl. Psychol. 19, 351 (1936).

Geldard, F. A.

F. A. Geldard, J. Gen. Psychol. 7, 185 (1932).

Graham, C. H.

C. H. Graham and R. Granit, Am. J. Physiol. 98, 664 (1931).

C. H. Graham and E. H. Kemp, J. Gen. Physiol. 21, 635 (1938).

Granit, R.

C. H. Graham and R. Granit, Am. J. Physiol. 98, 664 (1931).

Hartline, H. K.

H. K. Hartline and F. Ratliff, J. Gen. Physiol. 40, 357 (1957).

Heinemana, E. G.

E. G. Heinemana, J. Exptl. Psychol. 50, 89 (1955).

Hubel, D. H.

D. H. Hubel and T. N. Weisel, J. Physiol. (London) 148, 574 (1959).

Ireland, F. H.

F. H. Ireland, J. Exptl. Psychol. 40, 282 (1950).

Kaplan, I. T.

H. Ripps and I. T. Kaplan, J. Exptl. Psychol. 60, 255 (1960).

Kemp, E. H.

C. H. Graham and E. H. Kemp, J. Gen. Physiol. 21, 635 (1938).

Liebowitz, H.

H. Liebowitz, F. A. Mote, and W. R. Thurlow, J. Exptl. Psychol. 46, 453(1953).

Lipkin, B. S.

B. S. Lipkin, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 52, 1296 (1962).

Lythgoe, R. J.

R. J. Lythgoe and K. Tansley, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) B105, 60 (1929).

Mote, F. A.

H. Liebowitz, F. A. Mote, and W. R. Thurlow, J. Exptl. Psychol. 46, 453(1953).

Perrin, F. H.

F. H. Perrin, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 44, 60 (1954).

Ratliff, F.

H. K. Hartline and F. Ratliff, J. Gen. Physiol. 40, 357 (1957).

Ripps, H.

H. Ripps and I. T. Kaplan, J. Exptl. Psychol. 60, 255 (1960).

Sherrington, C. S.

C. S. Sherrington, The Integrative Action of the Nervous System (Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, 1923), 7th printing, Lecture X, p. 354.

Smith, J. R.

J. R. Smith, J. Gen. Psychol. 14, 318 (1936).

Tansley, K.

R. J. Lythgoe and K. Tansley, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) B105, 60 (1929).

Thomas, G.

G. Thomas, Am. J. Psychol. 68, 37 (1955).

G. Thomas, Am. J. Psychol. 67, 632 (1954).

Thurlow, W. R.

H. Liebowitz, F. A. Mote, and W. R. Thurlow, J. Exptl. Psychol. 46, 453(1953).

Weisel, T. N.

D. H. Hubel and T. N. Weisel, J. Physiol. (London) 148, 574 (1959).

Other (23)

C. S. Sherrington, The Integrative Action of the Nervous System (Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, 1923), 7th printing, Lecture X, p. 354.

C. H. Baker and E. A. Bott, Can. J. Psychol. 5, 9 (1951).

F. H. Ireland, J. Exptl. Psychol. 40, 282 (1950).

F. H. Perrin, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 44, 60 (1954).

G. Thomas, Am. J. Psychol. 68, 37 (1955).

G. Thomas, Am. J. Psychol. 67, 632 (1954).

B. S. Lipkin, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 52, 1296 (1962).

Tables of data for all conditions for both subjects are to be found in "Monocular Critical Flicker Fusion as a Function of the Area and Intensity of a Contralateral Steady Light" which may be obtained from University Microfilms Inc., 313 No. First St., Ann Arbor, Michigan, order number 62–92.

C. Berger, Acta Physiol. Scand. 31, 161 (1954).

H. Ripps and I. T. Kaplan, J. Exptl. Psychol. 60, 255 (1960).

R. J. Lythgoe and K. Tansley, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) B105, 60 (1929).

F. A. Geldard, J. Gen. Psychol. 7, 185 (1932).

C. H. Graham and R. Granit, Am. J. Physiol. 98, 664 (1931).

G. A. Fry and S. H. Bartley, J. Exptl. Psychol. 19, 351 (1936).

E. G. Heinemana, J. Exptl. Psychol. 50, 89 (1955).

A. L. Diamond, J. Exptl. Psychol. 50, 144 (1955).

H. Liebowitz, F. A. Mote, and W. R. Thurlow, J. Exptl. Psychol. 46, 453(1953).

M. Alpern, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 43, 648 (1953).

C. H. Graham and E. H. Kemp, J. Gen. Physiol. 21, 635 (1938).

J. R. Smith, J. Gen. Psychol. 14, 318 (1936).

Fechner's paradox refers to a binocular phenomenon, in which a dim light does not add to the apparent brightness of a brighter light in the other eye, but instead diminishes its effectiveness. This was demonstrated by De Silva and Bartley for steady luminances [Brit. J. Psychol. 20, 241 (1930)]. The concept has been extended to mean that the net binocular interaction is an averaging of the two brightnesses.

H. K. Hartline and F. Ratliff, J. Gen. Physiol. 40, 357 (1957).

D. H. Hubel and T. N. Weisel, J. Physiol. (London) 148, 574 (1959).

Cited By

OSA participates in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. Citing articles from OSA journals and other participating publishers are listed here.

Alert me when this article is cited.