Abstract

Conditioning stimuli of differing luminances, which appear equally bright because of the effects of previous light adaptation, may produce essentially equivalent on-responses, as evaluated by the temporal changes in the threshold of a superimposed test flash. The magnitude of these responses is directly related not to the actual luminance of the conditioning stimulus in each case, but to its brightness. Over a fairly wide range of conditions of light adaptation and brightness, constant brightness is accompanied by constant changes in log visual sensitivity, as assessed both by an increment threshold and the conditioning-stimulus-test-flash-threshold techniques.

Only at intermediate sensitivity levels is there any evidence for a simple “filter factor” model for the light-adaptation mechanism. The visual response at the extremes of the sensitivity range appears to approach physiological limits which render a simple model of the effects of light adaptation untenable.

© 1962 Optical Society of America

Full Article  |  PDF Article

References

  • View by:
  • |
  • |
  • |

  1. K. J. W. Craik, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) B128, 232 (1940).
    [Crossref]
  2. J. F. Schouten and L. S. Ornstein, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 29, 168 (1939).
    [Crossref]
  3. J. W. Onley, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 51, 667 (1961).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  4. B. H. Crawford, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) B134, 283 (1947).
    [Crossref]
  5. H. D. Baker, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 39, 172 (1949).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  6. R. M. Boynton and G. Kandel, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 47, 275 (1957); R. M. Boynton, A.M.A. Arch. Ophthalmol. 60, 800 (1958).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  7. W. R. Bush, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 45, 1047 (1955).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  8. W. S. Battersby and I. H. Wagman, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 49, 752 (1959).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  9. W. S. Battersby, I. H. Wagman, E. Karp, and M. B. Bender, A.M.A. Arch. Neurol. 3, 24 (1960).
    [Crossref]
  10. See for example, W. A. Rosenblith (Ed.) Sensory Communication (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1961).

1961 (1)

1960 (1)

W. S. Battersby, I. H. Wagman, E. Karp, and M. B. Bender, A.M.A. Arch. Neurol. 3, 24 (1960).
[Crossref]

1959 (1)

1957 (1)

1955 (1)

1949 (1)

1947 (1)

B. H. Crawford, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) B134, 283 (1947).
[Crossref]

1940 (1)

K. J. W. Craik, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) B128, 232 (1940).
[Crossref]

1939 (1)

Baker, H. D.

Battersby, W. S.

W. S. Battersby, I. H. Wagman, E. Karp, and M. B. Bender, A.M.A. Arch. Neurol. 3, 24 (1960).
[Crossref]

W. S. Battersby and I. H. Wagman, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 49, 752 (1959).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Bender, M. B.

W. S. Battersby, I. H. Wagman, E. Karp, and M. B. Bender, A.M.A. Arch. Neurol. 3, 24 (1960).
[Crossref]

Boynton, R. M.

Bush, W. R.

Craik, K. J. W.

K. J. W. Craik, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) B128, 232 (1940).
[Crossref]

Crawford, B. H.

B. H. Crawford, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) B134, 283 (1947).
[Crossref]

Kandel, G.

Karp, E.

W. S. Battersby, I. H. Wagman, E. Karp, and M. B. Bender, A.M.A. Arch. Neurol. 3, 24 (1960).
[Crossref]

Onley, J. W.

Ornstein, L. S.

Schouten, J. F.

Wagman, I. H.

W. S. Battersby, I. H. Wagman, E. Karp, and M. B. Bender, A.M.A. Arch. Neurol. 3, 24 (1960).
[Crossref]

W. S. Battersby and I. H. Wagman, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 49, 752 (1959).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

A.M.A. Arch. Neurol. (1)

W. S. Battersby, I. H. Wagman, E. Karp, and M. B. Bender, A.M.A. Arch. Neurol. 3, 24 (1960).
[Crossref]

J. Opt. Soc. Am. (6)

Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) (2)

B. H. Crawford, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) B134, 283 (1947).
[Crossref]

K. J. W. Craik, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) B128, 232 (1940).
[Crossref]

Other (1)

See for example, W. A. Rosenblith (Ed.) Sensory Communication (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1961).

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 (7)

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Experimental conditions and procedures.

Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Conditioning stimulus luminances required to appear of the same brightness as each standard conditioning stimulus, after differential preadaptation to the levels indicated.

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Differences between the log test-flash threshold obtained in the presence of a conditioning stimulus (“on”) and that obtained in its absence (“off”), as a function of the luminance of the preadapting stimulus.

Fig. 4
Fig. 4

Threshold functions obtained by Procedure III. Each family of functions represents a set of conditioning stimuli which have all been judged to be equally bright by Procedure I. The sets are in each case labeled according to the nominal log luminance of the conditioning stimulus standard.

Fig. 5
Fig. 5

“On-response” functions obtained by subtracting log test-flash thresholds for the “off” condition from the thresholds obtained with the conditioning stimulus on. Each family of functions corresponds to the function sets of Fig. 4, after log test-flash thresholds have been subtracted independently for each preadapting stimulus level.

Fig. 6
Fig. 6

Average threshold elevation produced at each brightness level, for each of the “on-response” functions of Fig. 5, as a function of the nominal log luminance of the conditioning stimulus standard.

Fig. 7
Fig. 7

Change in luminance for a criterion “on-response” as a function of relative threshold increase due to preadaptation (both measures represent differences between log luminances).

Tables (1)

Tables Icon

Table I Conditioning stimulus luminances required to match each of the conditioning stimulus standards (log mL)