Abstract

We evaluated the effect of substitutive noise on contrast sensitivity within the context of linear (Fourier) and nonlinear (non-Fourier) visual processes. Orientation judgments for D6 (sixth spatial derivative of Gaussian) patterns were obtained from three visually normal subjects when random regions of the target and background were occluded by small (1.7 arc min) pixel arrays that were either all of the same contrast polarity or a mixture of equal percentages of negative and positive contrast. The target was presented either synchronously or asynchronously with the occluding elements. Our results indicate that the manipulation of noise characteristics in this way can bias performance either toward a nonlinear process that is insensitive to noise contrast polarity but sensitive to temporal asynchrony or toward a quasi-linear process that is sensitive to noise contrast polarity but insensitive to temporal asynchrony. These findings have relevance to models of the effect of spatial sampling on the visual performance of persons with retinal disease.

© 1998 Optical Society of America

Full Article  |  PDF Article

References

  • View by:
  • |
  • |
  • |

  1. J. B. Mulligan, D. I. A. MacLeod, “Visual sensitivity to spatially sampled modulation in human observers,” Vision Res. 31, 895–905 (1991).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. A. M. Geller, P. A. Sieving, D. G. Green, “Effect on grating identification of sampling with degenerate arrays,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 9, 472–477 (1992).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. K. R. Alexander, W. Xie, D. J. Derlacki, J. P. Szlyk, “Effect of spatial sampling on grating resolution and letter identification,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 12, 1825–1833 (1995).
    [CrossRef]
  4. W. Seiple, K. Holopigian, J. P. Szlyk, V. C. Greenstein, “The effects of random element loss on letter identification: implications for visual acuity loss in patients with retinitis pigmentosa,” Vision Res. 35, 2057–2066 (1995).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. W. Xie, K. R. Alexander, M. W. Levine, R. Priemer, “Power spectrum analysis of degraded visual targets,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. (Suppl.) 37, S732 (1996). The noise replaces or substitutes for the visual target. More formally, the degraded image g can be defined as g(x, y)=c1(x, y)f(x, y)+c2(x, y)h(x, y), where f(x, y) is the target; h(x, y) is another image used to degrade the target (i.e., a random field of occluding elements); and c1(x, y) and c2(x, y) are coefficient arrays. In the case of substitutive noise, c2(x, y)=1-c1(x, y), and c1(x, y)∈{0, 1}. By comparison, for additive noise, c1=c2=0.5.
  6. B. L. Beard, D. M. Levi, S. A. Klein, “Vernier acuity with non-simultaneous targets—the cortical magnification factor estimated by psychophysics,” Vision Res. 37, 325–346 (1997).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. C. Chubb, G. Sperling, “Two motion perception mechanisms revealed by distance driven reversal of apparent motion,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86, 2985–2989 (1989).
    [CrossRef]
  8. J. Boulton, C. L. Baker, “Dependence on stimulus onset asynchrony in apparent motion: evidence for two mechanisms,” Vision Res. 33, 2013–2019 (1993).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. N. Graham, J. Beck, A. Sutter, “Nonlinear processes in spatial-frequency channel models of perceived texture segregation,” Vision Res. 32, 719–743 (1992).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. D. M. Levi, V. Sharma, S. A. Klein, “Feature integration in pattern perception,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 11742–11746 (1997).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. L.-M. Lin, H. R. Wilson, “Fourier and non-Fourier pattern discrimination compared,” Vision Res. 36, 1907–1918 (1996).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. H. R. Wilson, D. K. McFarlane, G. C. Phillips, “Spatial frequency tuning of orientation selective units estimated by oblique masking,” Vision Res. 23, 873–882 (1983). D6 patterns are similar in spatial-frequency content to a Gaussian windowed sinusoidal grating or Gabor patch.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. W. H. Swanson, E. E. Birch, “Infant spatiotemporal vision: dependence of spatial contrast sensitivity on temporal frequency,” Vision Res. 30, 1033–1048 (1990).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. D. G. Pelli, L. Zhang, “Accurate control of contrast on microcomputer displays,” Vision Res. 31, 1337–1350 (1991).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. A. C. Naiman, W. Makous, “Spatial non-linearities of grayscale CRT pixels,” in Human Vision, Visual Processing, and Digital Display III, B. E. Rogowitz, ed., Proc. SPIE1666, 41–56 (1992).
    [CrossRef]
  16. B. J. Fellows, “Chance stimulus sequences for discrimination tasks,” Psychol. Bull. 67, 87–92 (1967).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. H. Levitt, “Transformed up–down methods in psychoacoustics,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 49, 467–477 (1971).
    [CrossRef]
  18. A. van Meeteren, J. M. Valeton, “Effects of pictorial noise interfering with visual detection,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 5, 438–444 (1988).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. H. R. Wilson, “A neural model of foveal light adaptation and afterimage formation,” Visual Neurosci. 14, 403–423 (1997).
    [CrossRef]
  20. J. Pokorny, V. C. Smith, “Psychophysical signatures associated with magnocellular and parvocellular pathway contrast gain,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 14, 2477–2486 (1997).
    [CrossRef]
  21. Although the stimuli are presented briefly in the pulse-pedestal paradigm, this paradigm favors the PC pathway because both the target and the pedestal are effective stimuli for the MC pathway, which is relatively insensitive to contrast differences under these conditions owing to its nonlinear, saturating contrast gain function. A similar argument can be applied to our brief synchronous condition.

1997 (4)

B. L. Beard, D. M. Levi, S. A. Klein, “Vernier acuity with non-simultaneous targets—the cortical magnification factor estimated by psychophysics,” Vision Res. 37, 325–346 (1997).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

D. M. Levi, V. Sharma, S. A. Klein, “Feature integration in pattern perception,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 11742–11746 (1997).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

H. R. Wilson, “A neural model of foveal light adaptation and afterimage formation,” Visual Neurosci. 14, 403–423 (1997).
[CrossRef]

J. Pokorny, V. C. Smith, “Psychophysical signatures associated with magnocellular and parvocellular pathway contrast gain,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 14, 2477–2486 (1997).
[CrossRef]

1996 (2)

L.-M. Lin, H. R. Wilson, “Fourier and non-Fourier pattern discrimination compared,” Vision Res. 36, 1907–1918 (1996).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

W. Xie, K. R. Alexander, M. W. Levine, R. Priemer, “Power spectrum analysis of degraded visual targets,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. (Suppl.) 37, S732 (1996). The noise replaces or substitutes for the visual target. More formally, the degraded image g can be defined as g(x, y)=c1(x, y)f(x, y)+c2(x, y)h(x, y), where f(x, y) is the target; h(x, y) is another image used to degrade the target (i.e., a random field of occluding elements); and c1(x, y) and c2(x, y) are coefficient arrays. In the case of substitutive noise, c2(x, y)=1-c1(x, y), and c1(x, y)∈{0, 1}. By comparison, for additive noise, c1=c2=0.5.

1995 (2)

W. Seiple, K. Holopigian, J. P. Szlyk, V. C. Greenstein, “The effects of random element loss on letter identification: implications for visual acuity loss in patients with retinitis pigmentosa,” Vision Res. 35, 2057–2066 (1995).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

K. R. Alexander, W. Xie, D. J. Derlacki, J. P. Szlyk, “Effect of spatial sampling on grating resolution and letter identification,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 12, 1825–1833 (1995).
[CrossRef]

1993 (1)

J. Boulton, C. L. Baker, “Dependence on stimulus onset asynchrony in apparent motion: evidence for two mechanisms,” Vision Res. 33, 2013–2019 (1993).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

1992 (2)

N. Graham, J. Beck, A. Sutter, “Nonlinear processes in spatial-frequency channel models of perceived texture segregation,” Vision Res. 32, 719–743 (1992).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

A. M. Geller, P. A. Sieving, D. G. Green, “Effect on grating identification of sampling with degenerate arrays,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 9, 472–477 (1992).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

1991 (2)

J. B. Mulligan, D. I. A. MacLeod, “Visual sensitivity to spatially sampled modulation in human observers,” Vision Res. 31, 895–905 (1991).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

D. G. Pelli, L. Zhang, “Accurate control of contrast on microcomputer displays,” Vision Res. 31, 1337–1350 (1991).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

1990 (1)

W. H. Swanson, E. E. Birch, “Infant spatiotemporal vision: dependence of spatial contrast sensitivity on temporal frequency,” Vision Res. 30, 1033–1048 (1990).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

1989 (1)

C. Chubb, G. Sperling, “Two motion perception mechanisms revealed by distance driven reversal of apparent motion,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86, 2985–2989 (1989).
[CrossRef]

1988 (1)

1983 (1)

H. R. Wilson, D. K. McFarlane, G. C. Phillips, “Spatial frequency tuning of orientation selective units estimated by oblique masking,” Vision Res. 23, 873–882 (1983). D6 patterns are similar in spatial-frequency content to a Gaussian windowed sinusoidal grating or Gabor patch.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

1971 (1)

H. Levitt, “Transformed up–down methods in psychoacoustics,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 49, 467–477 (1971).
[CrossRef]

1967 (1)

B. J. Fellows, “Chance stimulus sequences for discrimination tasks,” Psychol. Bull. 67, 87–92 (1967).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Alexander, K. R.

W. Xie, K. R. Alexander, M. W. Levine, R. Priemer, “Power spectrum analysis of degraded visual targets,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. (Suppl.) 37, S732 (1996). The noise replaces or substitutes for the visual target. More formally, the degraded image g can be defined as g(x, y)=c1(x, y)f(x, y)+c2(x, y)h(x, y), where f(x, y) is the target; h(x, y) is another image used to degrade the target (i.e., a random field of occluding elements); and c1(x, y) and c2(x, y) are coefficient arrays. In the case of substitutive noise, c2(x, y)=1-c1(x, y), and c1(x, y)∈{0, 1}. By comparison, for additive noise, c1=c2=0.5.

K. R. Alexander, W. Xie, D. J. Derlacki, J. P. Szlyk, “Effect of spatial sampling on grating resolution and letter identification,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 12, 1825–1833 (1995).
[CrossRef]

Baker, C. L.

J. Boulton, C. L. Baker, “Dependence on stimulus onset asynchrony in apparent motion: evidence for two mechanisms,” Vision Res. 33, 2013–2019 (1993).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Beard, B. L.

B. L. Beard, D. M. Levi, S. A. Klein, “Vernier acuity with non-simultaneous targets—the cortical magnification factor estimated by psychophysics,” Vision Res. 37, 325–346 (1997).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Beck, J.

N. Graham, J. Beck, A. Sutter, “Nonlinear processes in spatial-frequency channel models of perceived texture segregation,” Vision Res. 32, 719–743 (1992).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Birch, E. E.

W. H. Swanson, E. E. Birch, “Infant spatiotemporal vision: dependence of spatial contrast sensitivity on temporal frequency,” Vision Res. 30, 1033–1048 (1990).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Boulton, J.

J. Boulton, C. L. Baker, “Dependence on stimulus onset asynchrony in apparent motion: evidence for two mechanisms,” Vision Res. 33, 2013–2019 (1993).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Chubb, C.

C. Chubb, G. Sperling, “Two motion perception mechanisms revealed by distance driven reversal of apparent motion,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86, 2985–2989 (1989).
[CrossRef]

Derlacki, D. J.

Fellows, B. J.

B. J. Fellows, “Chance stimulus sequences for discrimination tasks,” Psychol. Bull. 67, 87–92 (1967).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Geller, A. M.

Graham, N.

N. Graham, J. Beck, A. Sutter, “Nonlinear processes in spatial-frequency channel models of perceived texture segregation,” Vision Res. 32, 719–743 (1992).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Green, D. G.

Greenstein, V. C.

W. Seiple, K. Holopigian, J. P. Szlyk, V. C. Greenstein, “The effects of random element loss on letter identification: implications for visual acuity loss in patients with retinitis pigmentosa,” Vision Res. 35, 2057–2066 (1995).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Holopigian, K.

W. Seiple, K. Holopigian, J. P. Szlyk, V. C. Greenstein, “The effects of random element loss on letter identification: implications for visual acuity loss in patients with retinitis pigmentosa,” Vision Res. 35, 2057–2066 (1995).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Klein, S. A.

B. L. Beard, D. M. Levi, S. A. Klein, “Vernier acuity with non-simultaneous targets—the cortical magnification factor estimated by psychophysics,” Vision Res. 37, 325–346 (1997).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

D. M. Levi, V. Sharma, S. A. Klein, “Feature integration in pattern perception,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 11742–11746 (1997).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Levi, D. M.

D. M. Levi, V. Sharma, S. A. Klein, “Feature integration in pattern perception,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 11742–11746 (1997).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

B. L. Beard, D. M. Levi, S. A. Klein, “Vernier acuity with non-simultaneous targets—the cortical magnification factor estimated by psychophysics,” Vision Res. 37, 325–346 (1997).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Levine, M. W.

W. Xie, K. R. Alexander, M. W. Levine, R. Priemer, “Power spectrum analysis of degraded visual targets,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. (Suppl.) 37, S732 (1996). The noise replaces or substitutes for the visual target. More formally, the degraded image g can be defined as g(x, y)=c1(x, y)f(x, y)+c2(x, y)h(x, y), where f(x, y) is the target; h(x, y) is another image used to degrade the target (i.e., a random field of occluding elements); and c1(x, y) and c2(x, y) are coefficient arrays. In the case of substitutive noise, c2(x, y)=1-c1(x, y), and c1(x, y)∈{0, 1}. By comparison, for additive noise, c1=c2=0.5.

Levitt, H.

H. Levitt, “Transformed up–down methods in psychoacoustics,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 49, 467–477 (1971).
[CrossRef]

Lin, L.-M.

L.-M. Lin, H. R. Wilson, “Fourier and non-Fourier pattern discrimination compared,” Vision Res. 36, 1907–1918 (1996).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

MacLeod, D. I. A.

J. B. Mulligan, D. I. A. MacLeod, “Visual sensitivity to spatially sampled modulation in human observers,” Vision Res. 31, 895–905 (1991).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Makous, W.

A. C. Naiman, W. Makous, “Spatial non-linearities of grayscale CRT pixels,” in Human Vision, Visual Processing, and Digital Display III, B. E. Rogowitz, ed., Proc. SPIE1666, 41–56 (1992).
[CrossRef]

McFarlane, D. K.

H. R. Wilson, D. K. McFarlane, G. C. Phillips, “Spatial frequency tuning of orientation selective units estimated by oblique masking,” Vision Res. 23, 873–882 (1983). D6 patterns are similar in spatial-frequency content to a Gaussian windowed sinusoidal grating or Gabor patch.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Mulligan, J. B.

J. B. Mulligan, D. I. A. MacLeod, “Visual sensitivity to spatially sampled modulation in human observers,” Vision Res. 31, 895–905 (1991).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Naiman, A. C.

A. C. Naiman, W. Makous, “Spatial non-linearities of grayscale CRT pixels,” in Human Vision, Visual Processing, and Digital Display III, B. E. Rogowitz, ed., Proc. SPIE1666, 41–56 (1992).
[CrossRef]

Pelli, D. G.

D. G. Pelli, L. Zhang, “Accurate control of contrast on microcomputer displays,” Vision Res. 31, 1337–1350 (1991).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Phillips, G. C.

H. R. Wilson, D. K. McFarlane, G. C. Phillips, “Spatial frequency tuning of orientation selective units estimated by oblique masking,” Vision Res. 23, 873–882 (1983). D6 patterns are similar in spatial-frequency content to a Gaussian windowed sinusoidal grating or Gabor patch.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Pokorny, J.

Priemer, R.

W. Xie, K. R. Alexander, M. W. Levine, R. Priemer, “Power spectrum analysis of degraded visual targets,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. (Suppl.) 37, S732 (1996). The noise replaces or substitutes for the visual target. More formally, the degraded image g can be defined as g(x, y)=c1(x, y)f(x, y)+c2(x, y)h(x, y), where f(x, y) is the target; h(x, y) is another image used to degrade the target (i.e., a random field of occluding elements); and c1(x, y) and c2(x, y) are coefficient arrays. In the case of substitutive noise, c2(x, y)=1-c1(x, y), and c1(x, y)∈{0, 1}. By comparison, for additive noise, c1=c2=0.5.

Seiple, W.

W. Seiple, K. Holopigian, J. P. Szlyk, V. C. Greenstein, “The effects of random element loss on letter identification: implications for visual acuity loss in patients with retinitis pigmentosa,” Vision Res. 35, 2057–2066 (1995).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Sharma, V.

D. M. Levi, V. Sharma, S. A. Klein, “Feature integration in pattern perception,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 11742–11746 (1997).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Sieving, P. A.

Smith, V. C.

Sperling, G.

C. Chubb, G. Sperling, “Two motion perception mechanisms revealed by distance driven reversal of apparent motion,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86, 2985–2989 (1989).
[CrossRef]

Sutter, A.

N. Graham, J. Beck, A. Sutter, “Nonlinear processes in spatial-frequency channel models of perceived texture segregation,” Vision Res. 32, 719–743 (1992).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Swanson, W. H.

W. H. Swanson, E. E. Birch, “Infant spatiotemporal vision: dependence of spatial contrast sensitivity on temporal frequency,” Vision Res. 30, 1033–1048 (1990).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Szlyk, J. P.

W. Seiple, K. Holopigian, J. P. Szlyk, V. C. Greenstein, “The effects of random element loss on letter identification: implications for visual acuity loss in patients with retinitis pigmentosa,” Vision Res. 35, 2057–2066 (1995).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

K. R. Alexander, W. Xie, D. J. Derlacki, J. P. Szlyk, “Effect of spatial sampling on grating resolution and letter identification,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 12, 1825–1833 (1995).
[CrossRef]

Valeton, J. M.

van Meeteren, A.

Wilson, H. R.

H. R. Wilson, “A neural model of foveal light adaptation and afterimage formation,” Visual Neurosci. 14, 403–423 (1997).
[CrossRef]

L.-M. Lin, H. R. Wilson, “Fourier and non-Fourier pattern discrimination compared,” Vision Res. 36, 1907–1918 (1996).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

H. R. Wilson, D. K. McFarlane, G. C. Phillips, “Spatial frequency tuning of orientation selective units estimated by oblique masking,” Vision Res. 23, 873–882 (1983). D6 patterns are similar in spatial-frequency content to a Gaussian windowed sinusoidal grating or Gabor patch.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Xie, W.

W. Xie, K. R. Alexander, M. W. Levine, R. Priemer, “Power spectrum analysis of degraded visual targets,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. (Suppl.) 37, S732 (1996). The noise replaces or substitutes for the visual target. More formally, the degraded image g can be defined as g(x, y)=c1(x, y)f(x, y)+c2(x, y)h(x, y), where f(x, y) is the target; h(x, y) is another image used to degrade the target (i.e., a random field of occluding elements); and c1(x, y) and c2(x, y) are coefficient arrays. In the case of substitutive noise, c2(x, y)=1-c1(x, y), and c1(x, y)∈{0, 1}. By comparison, for additive noise, c1=c2=0.5.

K. R. Alexander, W. Xie, D. J. Derlacki, J. P. Szlyk, “Effect of spatial sampling on grating resolution and letter identification,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 12, 1825–1833 (1995).
[CrossRef]

Zhang, L.

D. G. Pelli, L. Zhang, “Accurate control of contrast on microcomputer displays,” Vision Res. 31, 1337–1350 (1991).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. (1)

W. Xie, K. R. Alexander, M. W. Levine, R. Priemer, “Power spectrum analysis of degraded visual targets,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. (Suppl.) 37, S732 (1996). The noise replaces or substitutes for the visual target. More formally, the degraded image g can be defined as g(x, y)=c1(x, y)f(x, y)+c2(x, y)h(x, y), where f(x, y) is the target; h(x, y) is another image used to degrade the target (i.e., a random field of occluding elements); and c1(x, y) and c2(x, y) are coefficient arrays. In the case of substitutive noise, c2(x, y)=1-c1(x, y), and c1(x, y)∈{0, 1}. By comparison, for additive noise, c1=c2=0.5.

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. (1)

H. Levitt, “Transformed up–down methods in psychoacoustics,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 49, 467–477 (1971).
[CrossRef]

J. Opt. Soc. Am. A (4)

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA (2)

C. Chubb, G. Sperling, “Two motion perception mechanisms revealed by distance driven reversal of apparent motion,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86, 2985–2989 (1989).
[CrossRef]

D. M. Levi, V. Sharma, S. A. Klein, “Feature integration in pattern perception,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 11742–11746 (1997).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Psychol. Bull. (1)

B. J. Fellows, “Chance stimulus sequences for discrimination tasks,” Psychol. Bull. 67, 87–92 (1967).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Vision Res. (9)

W. Seiple, K. Holopigian, J. P. Szlyk, V. C. Greenstein, “The effects of random element loss on letter identification: implications for visual acuity loss in patients with retinitis pigmentosa,” Vision Res. 35, 2057–2066 (1995).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

L.-M. Lin, H. R. Wilson, “Fourier and non-Fourier pattern discrimination compared,” Vision Res. 36, 1907–1918 (1996).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

H. R. Wilson, D. K. McFarlane, G. C. Phillips, “Spatial frequency tuning of orientation selective units estimated by oblique masking,” Vision Res. 23, 873–882 (1983). D6 patterns are similar in spatial-frequency content to a Gaussian windowed sinusoidal grating or Gabor patch.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

W. H. Swanson, E. E. Birch, “Infant spatiotemporal vision: dependence of spatial contrast sensitivity on temporal frequency,” Vision Res. 30, 1033–1048 (1990).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

D. G. Pelli, L. Zhang, “Accurate control of contrast on microcomputer displays,” Vision Res. 31, 1337–1350 (1991).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

J. Boulton, C. L. Baker, “Dependence on stimulus onset asynchrony in apparent motion: evidence for two mechanisms,” Vision Res. 33, 2013–2019 (1993).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

N. Graham, J. Beck, A. Sutter, “Nonlinear processes in spatial-frequency channel models of perceived texture segregation,” Vision Res. 32, 719–743 (1992).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

B. L. Beard, D. M. Levi, S. A. Klein, “Vernier acuity with non-simultaneous targets—the cortical magnification factor estimated by psychophysics,” Vision Res. 37, 325–346 (1997).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

J. B. Mulligan, D. I. A. MacLeod, “Visual sensitivity to spatially sampled modulation in human observers,” Vision Res. 31, 895–905 (1991).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Visual Neurosci. (1)

H. R. Wilson, “A neural model of foveal light adaptation and afterimage formation,” Visual Neurosci. 14, 403–423 (1997).
[CrossRef]

Other (2)

Although the stimuli are presented briefly in the pulse-pedestal paradigm, this paradigm favors the PC pathway because both the target and the pedestal are effective stimuli for the MC pathway, which is relatively insensitive to contrast differences under these conditions owing to its nonlinear, saturating contrast gain function. A similar argument can be applied to our brief synchronous condition.

A. C. Naiman, W. Makous, “Spatial non-linearities of grayscale CRT pixels,” in Human Vision, Visual Processing, and Digital Display III, B. E. Rogowitz, ed., Proc. SPIE1666, 41–56 (1992).
[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 (10)

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Illustration of a D6 pattern in the presence of occluding elements that were either (a) all of negative contrast, or (b) randomly of negative and positive contrast. In both cases 25% of the display was occluded.

Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Illustration of the three temporal conditions.

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Mean contrast sensitivity functions for three visually normal subjects for D6 patterns alone (diamonds), or for D6 patterns in the presence of randomly positioned occluding elements that were either of negative contrast polarity (filled triangles) or positive and negative contrast polarity (dotted triangles) and were asynchronous with the D6 pattern. Error bars indicate ±1 standard error of the mean (SEM).

Fig. 4
Fig. 4

Mean contrast sensitivity functions for three visually normal subjects for D6 patterns alone (diamonds), or for D6 patterns in the presence of randomly positioned occluding elements that were all of negative contrast polarity and were presented either synchronously (filled circles) or asynchronously (filled triangles) with the D6 pattern. Error bars indicate ±1 SEM.

Fig. 5
Fig. 5

Mean contrast sensitivity functions for three visually normal subjects for D6 patterns alone (diamonds), or for D6 patterns in the presence of randomly positioned occluding elements that were presented synchronously with the D6 pattern and were either of negative contrast polarity (filled circles) or positive and negative contrast polarity (dotted circles). Error bars indicate ±1 SEM.

Fig. 6
Fig. 6

Mean contrast sensitivity functions for three visually normal subjects for D6 patterns alone (diamonds), or for D6 patterns in the presence of randomly positioned occluding elements that were of positive and negative contrast polarity and were presented either synchronously (dotted circles) or asynchronously (dotted triangles) with the D6 pattern. Error bars indicate ±1 SEM.

Fig. 7
Fig. 7

Contrast sensitivity functions for subject KA for D6 patterns alone (diamonds), or for D6 patterns in the presence of randomly positioned occluding elements that were presented asynchronously with the D6 pattern and were of negative contrast (filled triangles), positive contrast (open triangles), or positive and negative contrast (dotted triangles). Error bars indicate ±1 SEM.

Fig. 8
Fig. 8

Contrast sensitivity functions for subject KA for D6 patterns alone (diamonds), or for D6 patterns in the presence of randomly positioned occluding elements that were presented synchronously with the D6 pattern and were of negative contrast (filled circles), positive contrast (open circles), or positive and negative contrast (dotted circles). Error bars indicate ±1 SEM.

Fig. 9
Fig. 9

Contrast sensitivity functions for subject KA for D6 patterns alone (diamonds), or for D6 patterns in the presence of randomly positioned occluding elements that were all of negative contrast and were presented either asynchronously with the D6 pattern (filled triangles) or in one of two synchronous relationships: (1) short-duration D6, short-duration noise (filled circles); or (2) long-duration D6, long-duration noise (filled squares). Error bars indicate ±1 SEM.

Fig. 10
Fig. 10

Contrast sensitivity functions for subject KA for D6 patterns alone (diamonds), or for D6 patterns in the presence of randomly positioned occluding elements that were of positive and negative contrast and were presented either asynchronously with the D6 pattern (dotted triangles) or in one of two synchronous relationships: (1) short-duration D6, short-duration noise (dotted circles); or (2) long-duration D6, long-duration noise (dotted squares). Error bars indicate ±1 SEM.

Equations (2)

Equations on this page are rendered with MathJax. Learn more.

ωp=3/πσs,
C=(Lpeak-Lmean)/Lmean,

Metrics