Abstract

The relation between field size and decrease in critical rate (CFF) of a flickering field stereoscopically superimposed on a contralateral steady image is reported. Two designs were used. In one, luminances spanning a 6-log-unit range were variously combined in fields which were both 1.5°, 3°, or 9° or in which the flickering field was the smaller image. The other design utilized the same luminance combinations but the flickering image was 6° and the adapting field was varied from 9° to 1.5°. Results indicate that if both fields are initially 1.5° then increasing the size of both fields or of just the adapting field does not further decrease CFF. But if the size of the flickering field is increased to 6°, CFF of the 1.5° central portion of the flicker field which appears superimposed on the 1.5° adapting field is markedly reduced, while the flickering annulus shows the threshold reduction expected with equal-sized 6° fields. The center of a fairly bright 6° flicker field viewed with an adapting field 4.5° or less and flashing at low frequencies appears steady. Several interpretations of the results (macular dominance, corresponding points, monocular cross-regional interaction) are discussed.

© 1962 Optical Society of America

Full Article  |  PDF Article

References

  • View by:
  • |
  • |
  • |

  1. B. S. Lipkin, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 52, 1287 (1962), hereafter called Paper I.
    [Crossref]
  2. P. Ratoosh and C. H. Graham, J. Exp. Psychol. 42, 367 (1951).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  3. F. H. Perrin, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 44, 60 (1954).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  4. Tables of area data are contained in “Monocular Critical Flicker Fusion as a Function of the Area and Intensity of a Contralateral Steady Light” which is obtainable from University Microfilms Inc., 313 No. First St., Ann Arbor, Michigan, Order No. 62–92.
  5. G. Thomas, Am. J. Psychol. 67, 632 (1954).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  6. S. W. Kuffler, in “Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology: The Neuron” (The Biological Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, 1952), Vol. XVII, p. 281.
    [Crossref]
  7. D. H. Hubel and T. N. Wiesel, J. Physiol. 148, 574 (1959).

1962 (1)

1959 (1)

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

1954 (2)

1951 (1)

P. Ratoosh and C. H. Graham, J. Exp. Psychol. 42, 367 (1951).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Graham, C. H.

P. Ratoosh and C. H. Graham, J. Exp. Psychol. 42, 367 (1951).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Hubel, D. H.

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

Kuffler, S. W.

S. W. Kuffler, in “Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology: The Neuron” (The Biological Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, 1952), Vol. XVII, p. 281.
[Crossref]

Lipkin, B. S.

Perrin, F. H.

Ratoosh, P.

P. Ratoosh and C. H. Graham, J. Exp. Psychol. 42, 367 (1951).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Thomas, G.

G. Thomas, Am. J. Psychol. 67, 632 (1954).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Wiesel, T. N.

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

Am. J. Psychol. (1)

G. Thomas, Am. J. Psychol. 67, 632 (1954).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

J. Exp. Psychol. (1)

P. Ratoosh and C. H. Graham, J. Exp. Psychol. 42, 367 (1951).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

J. Opt. Soc. Am. (2)

J. Physiol. (1)

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

Other (2)

Tables of area data are contained in “Monocular Critical Flicker Fusion as a Function of the Area and Intensity of a Contralateral Steady Light” which is obtainable from University Microfilms Inc., 313 No. First St., Ann Arbor, Michigan, Order No. 62–92.

S. W. Kuffler, in “Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology: The Neuron” (The Biological Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, 1952), Vol. XVII, p. 281.
[Crossref]

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.


Figures (4)

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Flicker-fusion threshold (CFFf,s) in the presence of a 6 log μL contralateral adapting field as a function of the monocular critical rate (CFFf). Parameter is size of field when the fields are equal in size: 1.5°, 3°, and 9° of visual angle. “Monocular” indicates expected frequency on the assumption that the adapting field has no effect on critical rate. Data are for subject 1.

Fig. 2
Fig. 2

The effect of size of a contralateral adapting field on the critical rate of 1.5° flicker field. Flicker-fusion threshold (CFFf,s) in the presence of a 6 log μL adapting field as a function of monocular critical rate (CFFf). Parameter is size of adapting field (As): 1.5°, 3°, and 9° of visual angle. “Monocular” indicates expected frequency on the assumption that the steady light does not affect the threshold. Data are for subject 1.

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Critical rate (CFFf,s) of the inner flickering circle whose size varies since its circumference is coextensive with the adapting field. CFFf,s of the inner circle as a function of size of contralateral adapting field in log mm2. Parameter is luminance of the 6° flicker field (If); luminance of the adapting field is 6 log μL (Is). The monocular critical rate (CFFf) of the 6° flicker field (Af) is the value on the extreme right on each curve. Data are for subject 2.

Fig. 4
Fig. 4

Critical rate as a function of luminance of the flicker field (If) for monocular and binocular conditions. For most of the binocular curves (CFFf,s), the area of the flicker field is 6° (Af); the luminance of the adapting field is 6.08 log μL; and the parameter is size of the adapting field (As). In addition, two binocular curves contain data obtained with the 1.5°–1.5° and 3°–3° area combinations (AfAs). Data are for subject 2.