Abstract

Parafoveal spectral response functions for the contrast-flash masking of a just-visible 661-nm bar test are proportional to Π5 (Stiles’s long-wave function) at long wavelengths but show an unexpected dip around 575 nm and are almost flat at short wavelengths, on a dim (2-Td) rod-desensitizing 500-nm auxiliary. This effect is not due to rod intrusions or scattered light. Masking functions are approximately proportional to Π5 throughout the spectrum, however, if the 500-nm auxiliary is replaced by a π5-equated 445-nm auxiliary or if the flanking bar mask used in the main experiment is replaced by a uniform contrast-flash mask. These results suggest that a contour-sensitive interaction involving short-wave cones may modify the extent of masking in the pathway that detects the long-wave test.

© 1988 Optical Society of America

Full Article  |  PDF Article

References

  • View by:
  • |
  • |
  • |

  1. M. Alpern, W. A. H. Rushton, “The specificity of the cone interaction in the after-flash effect,”J. Physiol. (London) 176, 473–482 (1965).
  2. J. I. Yellott, B. A. Wandell, “Color properties of the contrast flash effect: monoptic vs. dichoptic comparisons,” Vision Res. 16, 1275–1280 (1976).
    [CrossRef]
  3. C. R. Cavonius, A. Reeves, “The interpretation of metacontrast and contrast-flash spectral sensitivity,” in Colour Vision, J. Mollon, L. Sharpe, eds. (Academic, London, 1983).
  4. G. Wald, “Human vision and the spectrum,” Science 101, 653–658 (1945).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. A. Reeves, N. S. Peachey, E. Auerbach, “Interocular sensitization to a rod-detected test,” Vision Res. 26, 1119–1127 (1986).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. J. Krauskopf, “Light distribution in human retinal images,”J. Opt. Soc. Am. 52, 1046–1050 (1962).
    [CrossRef]
  7. W. S. Stiles, “The directional sensitivity of the retina and the spectral sensitivities of the rods and cones,” Proc. R. Soc. Ser. B 127, 64–105 (1939).
    [CrossRef]
  8. W. S. Stiles, Mechanisms of Colour Vision (Academic, London, 1978); G. W. Wyszecki, W. S. Stiles, Color Science (Wiley, New York, 1967).
  9. G. Haegerstorm-Portnoy, A. J. Adams, W. Verdon, “Do pi mechanisms only exist at the fovea?” Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. Suppl. 25, 147 (1984). These authors reported some distortion of Π5in the parafovea, which was not obvious here.
  10. K. R. Alexander, “Sensitization by annular surrounds: sensitization and the contrast-flash effect,” Vision Res. 14, 623–631 (1974); K. R. Alexander, S. Barry, “Visual masking and the contrast-flash effect,” Vision Res. 21, 301–309 (1981).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. B. R. Wooten, G. A. Geri, “Psychophysical determination of intraocular light scatter as a function of wavelength,” Vision Res. 27, 1291–1298 (1987). These authors showed scatter to be independent of wavelength, but their measurements were made 1.5 deg from the source of the scattered light.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. M. Alpern, “Rod–cone independence in the after-flash effect,”J. Physiol. London 176, 462–472 (1965).
  13. D. H. Foster, “Rod-cone interaction in the after-flash effect,” Vision Res. 16, 393–396 (1976).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. A. Reeves, M. Bearse, “The spectral response of masking in metacontrast,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. Suppl. 26, 183 (1985).
  15. The overall masking levels were elevated by 0.2 log unit for observer AR, compared with the earlier measurements (Fig. 2), and by 0.4 log unit for observer MB (compared with Fig. 3). As the experiments were conducted several months apart, this overall change may not be significant.
  16. On the auxiliary, π5is 0.75 log unit more sensitive than is π4to the 661-nm test. Thus the criterion test should only stimulate π5if these foveal estimates8 apply to the periphery.
  17. A. Reeves, “Metacontrast in hue substitution,” Vision Res. 21, 907–912 (1981); D. H. Foster, “Interactions between blue- and red-sensitive colour mechanisms in metacontrast masking,” Vision Res. 19, 921–931 (1979).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]

1987

B. R. Wooten, G. A. Geri, “Psychophysical determination of intraocular light scatter as a function of wavelength,” Vision Res. 27, 1291–1298 (1987). These authors showed scatter to be independent of wavelength, but their measurements were made 1.5 deg from the source of the scattered light.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

1986

A. Reeves, N. S. Peachey, E. Auerbach, “Interocular sensitization to a rod-detected test,” Vision Res. 26, 1119–1127 (1986).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

1985

A. Reeves, M. Bearse, “The spectral response of masking in metacontrast,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. Suppl. 26, 183 (1985).

1984

G. Haegerstorm-Portnoy, A. J. Adams, W. Verdon, “Do pi mechanisms only exist at the fovea?” Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. Suppl. 25, 147 (1984). These authors reported some distortion of Π5in the parafovea, which was not obvious here.

1981

A. Reeves, “Metacontrast in hue substitution,” Vision Res. 21, 907–912 (1981); D. H. Foster, “Interactions between blue- and red-sensitive colour mechanisms in metacontrast masking,” Vision Res. 19, 921–931 (1979).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

1976

D. H. Foster, “Rod-cone interaction in the after-flash effect,” Vision Res. 16, 393–396 (1976).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

J. I. Yellott, B. A. Wandell, “Color properties of the contrast flash effect: monoptic vs. dichoptic comparisons,” Vision Res. 16, 1275–1280 (1976).
[CrossRef]

1974

K. R. Alexander, “Sensitization by annular surrounds: sensitization and the contrast-flash effect,” Vision Res. 14, 623–631 (1974); K. R. Alexander, S. Barry, “Visual masking and the contrast-flash effect,” Vision Res. 21, 301–309 (1981).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

1965

M. Alpern, “Rod–cone independence in the after-flash effect,”J. Physiol. London 176, 462–472 (1965).

M. Alpern, W. A. H. Rushton, “The specificity of the cone interaction in the after-flash effect,”J. Physiol. (London) 176, 473–482 (1965).

1962

1945

G. Wald, “Human vision and the spectrum,” Science 101, 653–658 (1945).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

1939

W. S. Stiles, “The directional sensitivity of the retina and the spectral sensitivities of the rods and cones,” Proc. R. Soc. Ser. B 127, 64–105 (1939).
[CrossRef]

Adams, A. J.

G. Haegerstorm-Portnoy, A. J. Adams, W. Verdon, “Do pi mechanisms only exist at the fovea?” Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. Suppl. 25, 147 (1984). These authors reported some distortion of Π5in the parafovea, which was not obvious here.

Alexander, K. R.

K. R. Alexander, “Sensitization by annular surrounds: sensitization and the contrast-flash effect,” Vision Res. 14, 623–631 (1974); K. R. Alexander, S. Barry, “Visual masking and the contrast-flash effect,” Vision Res. 21, 301–309 (1981).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Alpern, M.

M. Alpern, W. A. H. Rushton, “The specificity of the cone interaction in the after-flash effect,”J. Physiol. (London) 176, 473–482 (1965).

M. Alpern, “Rod–cone independence in the after-flash effect,”J. Physiol. London 176, 462–472 (1965).

Auerbach, E.

A. Reeves, N. S. Peachey, E. Auerbach, “Interocular sensitization to a rod-detected test,” Vision Res. 26, 1119–1127 (1986).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Bearse, M.

A. Reeves, M. Bearse, “The spectral response of masking in metacontrast,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. Suppl. 26, 183 (1985).

Cavonius, C. R.

C. R. Cavonius, A. Reeves, “The interpretation of metacontrast and contrast-flash spectral sensitivity,” in Colour Vision, J. Mollon, L. Sharpe, eds. (Academic, London, 1983).

Foster, D. H.

D. H. Foster, “Rod-cone interaction in the after-flash effect,” Vision Res. 16, 393–396 (1976).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Geri, G. A.

B. R. Wooten, G. A. Geri, “Psychophysical determination of intraocular light scatter as a function of wavelength,” Vision Res. 27, 1291–1298 (1987). These authors showed scatter to be independent of wavelength, but their measurements were made 1.5 deg from the source of the scattered light.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Haegerstorm-Portnoy, G.

G. Haegerstorm-Portnoy, A. J. Adams, W. Verdon, “Do pi mechanisms only exist at the fovea?” Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. Suppl. 25, 147 (1984). These authors reported some distortion of Π5in the parafovea, which was not obvious here.

Krauskopf, J.

Peachey, N. S.

A. Reeves, N. S. Peachey, E. Auerbach, “Interocular sensitization to a rod-detected test,” Vision Res. 26, 1119–1127 (1986).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Reeves, A.

A. Reeves, N. S. Peachey, E. Auerbach, “Interocular sensitization to a rod-detected test,” Vision Res. 26, 1119–1127 (1986).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

A. Reeves, M. Bearse, “The spectral response of masking in metacontrast,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. Suppl. 26, 183 (1985).

A. Reeves, “Metacontrast in hue substitution,” Vision Res. 21, 907–912 (1981); D. H. Foster, “Interactions between blue- and red-sensitive colour mechanisms in metacontrast masking,” Vision Res. 19, 921–931 (1979).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

C. R. Cavonius, A. Reeves, “The interpretation of metacontrast and contrast-flash spectral sensitivity,” in Colour Vision, J. Mollon, L. Sharpe, eds. (Academic, London, 1983).

Rushton, W. A. H.

M. Alpern, W. A. H. Rushton, “The specificity of the cone interaction in the after-flash effect,”J. Physiol. (London) 176, 473–482 (1965).

Stiles, W. S.

W. S. Stiles, “The directional sensitivity of the retina and the spectral sensitivities of the rods and cones,” Proc. R. Soc. Ser. B 127, 64–105 (1939).
[CrossRef]

W. S. Stiles, Mechanisms of Colour Vision (Academic, London, 1978); G. W. Wyszecki, W. S. Stiles, Color Science (Wiley, New York, 1967).

Verdon, W.

G. Haegerstorm-Portnoy, A. J. Adams, W. Verdon, “Do pi mechanisms only exist at the fovea?” Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. Suppl. 25, 147 (1984). These authors reported some distortion of Π5in the parafovea, which was not obvious here.

Wald, G.

G. Wald, “Human vision and the spectrum,” Science 101, 653–658 (1945).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Wandell, B. A.

J. I. Yellott, B. A. Wandell, “Color properties of the contrast flash effect: monoptic vs. dichoptic comparisons,” Vision Res. 16, 1275–1280 (1976).
[CrossRef]

Wooten, B. R.

B. R. Wooten, G. A. Geri, “Psychophysical determination of intraocular light scatter as a function of wavelength,” Vision Res. 27, 1291–1298 (1987). These authors showed scatter to be independent of wavelength, but their measurements were made 1.5 deg from the source of the scattered light.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Yellott, J. I.

J. I. Yellott, B. A. Wandell, “Color properties of the contrast flash effect: monoptic vs. dichoptic comparisons,” Vision Res. 16, 1275–1280 (1976).
[CrossRef]

Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. Suppl.

G. Haegerstorm-Portnoy, A. J. Adams, W. Verdon, “Do pi mechanisms only exist at the fovea?” Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. Suppl. 25, 147 (1984). These authors reported some distortion of Π5in the parafovea, which was not obvious here.

Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. Suppl.

A. Reeves, M. Bearse, “The spectral response of masking in metacontrast,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. Suppl. 26, 183 (1985).

J. Opt. Soc. Am.

J. Physiol. (London)

M. Alpern, W. A. H. Rushton, “The specificity of the cone interaction in the after-flash effect,”J. Physiol. (London) 176, 473–482 (1965).

J. Physiol. London

M. Alpern, “Rod–cone independence in the after-flash effect,”J. Physiol. London 176, 462–472 (1965).

Proc. R. Soc. Ser. B

W. S. Stiles, “The directional sensitivity of the retina and the spectral sensitivities of the rods and cones,” Proc. R. Soc. Ser. B 127, 64–105 (1939).
[CrossRef]

Science

G. Wald, “Human vision and the spectrum,” Science 101, 653–658 (1945).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Vision Res.

A. Reeves, N. S. Peachey, E. Auerbach, “Interocular sensitization to a rod-detected test,” Vision Res. 26, 1119–1127 (1986).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

J. I. Yellott, B. A. Wandell, “Color properties of the contrast flash effect: monoptic vs. dichoptic comparisons,” Vision Res. 16, 1275–1280 (1976).
[CrossRef]

A. Reeves, “Metacontrast in hue substitution,” Vision Res. 21, 907–912 (1981); D. H. Foster, “Interactions between blue- and red-sensitive colour mechanisms in metacontrast masking,” Vision Res. 19, 921–931 (1979).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

K. R. Alexander, “Sensitization by annular surrounds: sensitization and the contrast-flash effect,” Vision Res. 14, 623–631 (1974); K. R. Alexander, S. Barry, “Visual masking and the contrast-flash effect,” Vision Res. 21, 301–309 (1981).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

B. R. Wooten, G. A. Geri, “Psychophysical determination of intraocular light scatter as a function of wavelength,” Vision Res. 27, 1291–1298 (1987). These authors showed scatter to be independent of wavelength, but their measurements were made 1.5 deg from the source of the scattered light.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

D. H. Foster, “Rod-cone interaction in the after-flash effect,” Vision Res. 16, 393–396 (1976).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Other

The overall masking levels were elevated by 0.2 log unit for observer AR, compared with the earlier measurements (Fig. 2), and by 0.4 log unit for observer MB (compared with Fig. 3). As the experiments were conducted several months apart, this overall change may not be significant.

On the auxiliary, π5is 0.75 log unit more sensitive than is π4to the 661-nm test. Thus the criterion test should only stimulate π5if these foveal estimates8 apply to the periphery.

W. S. Stiles, Mechanisms of Colour Vision (Academic, London, 1978); G. W. Wyszecki, W. S. Stiles, Color Science (Wiley, New York, 1967).

C. R. Cavonius, A. Reeves, “The interpretation of metacontrast and contrast-flash spectral sensitivity,” in Colour Vision, J. Mollon, L. Sharpe, eds. (Academic, London, 1983).

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 (5)

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Stimuli. (Top) The test (T) and flanking mask (M) bars were exposed with their lower edges 5.4 deg above fixation (Fix), on a 10.4-deg-diameter, 500-nm auxiliary. (Bottom) Temporal relationship in metacontrast (mask follows test, SOA positive). Bars were presented for 20 msec. The test (T) was set 0.4 log unit above threshold on the auxiliary (0.7 log unit above absolute threshold) and was returned to threshold by varying the mask intensity (M).

Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Mask radiance (quanta per degree squared per second) required to return a 661-nm test bar to threshold, plotted against mask wavelength for observer AR. Data for central SOA’s (connected by solid lines to aid the eye): ○, −70; Δ, −35; +, 0; ×, 35; ⋄, 70. Data for extreme SOA’s (connected by dashed lines): ○, −210; Δ, −175; +, −140; ×, −105; ⋄, +105.

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Same as Fig. 2 but for observer MB.

Fig. 4
Fig. 4

Same as Fig. 2 but for observer CL.

Fig. 5
Fig. 5

Masking (○) for the 661-nm test on the 500-nm auxiliary, averaged from data at central SOA’s in Figs. 2 and 4, plotted against the mask wavelength. Panels show results for observers AR, MB, CL, and KC and the mean. Measurements of foveal and parafoveal Π5 are shown by ×’s and ⋄’s, respectively. Masking on a 445-nm auxiliary is shown by Δ’s for observers AR and MB only. At 410 nm (far left of each graph) all symbols except ○ lie below the arrow (the maximum light available at 410 nm). Dashed lines show, for comparison, Π5 (field sensitivity for Stiles’s average observer).

Metrics