OSA's Digital Library

Journal of the Optical Society of America

Journal of the Optical Society of America

  • Vol. 62, Iss. 5 — May. 1, 1972
  • pp: 690–696

Spatial Characteristics of Metacontrast

RONALD GROWNEY and NAOMI WEISSTEIN  »View Author Affiliations

JOSA, Vol. 62, Issue 5, pp. 690-696 (1972)

View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (885 KB)

Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools



The spatial extent of lateral interaction was determined for nonoverlapping equal-energy stimuli in a metacontrast design with targets and masks of constant separation but varying width. The weighting functions derived from these data are wholly negative. Unlike previous estimates of spatial extent in metacontrast, based on experiments in which the separation between target and mask was varied, our weighting functions subtend only about 10′ of visual angle, for both monoptic and dichoptic observations. However, the weighting functions resemble those derived from a wide variety of other psychophysical procedures such as sensitization. The differences of estimates of weighting functions are interpreted in terms of two spatial-lateral-interaction systems. One of these systems may depend critically on the proximity of stimuli; the independence of the spatial extent of the system from target size suggests the involvement of an edge mechanism.

RONALD GROWNEY and NAOMI WEISSTEIN, "Spatial Characteristics of Metacontrast," J. Opt. Soc. Am. 62, 690-696 (1972)

Sort:  Author  |  Journal  |  Reset


  1. V. O'Brien, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 48, 112 (1958).
  2. T. N. Cornsweet and D. Y. Teller, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 55, 1303 (1965).
  3. M. Davidson and J. A. Whiteside, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 61, 530 (1971).
  4. J. P. Thomas, Vision Res. 8, 49 (1968).
  5. J. P. Thomas, Psychol. Rev. 77, 121 (1970). We have modified the equation slightly.
  6. G. Westheimer, J. Physiol. (London) 190, 139 (1967).
  7. G. von Bekesy, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 50, 1060 (1960).
  8. O. Bryngdahl, Vision Res. 6, 553 (1966).
  9. D. Y. Teller and B. Lindsey, Vision Res. 10, 1045 (1970).
  10. A. S. Patel, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 56, 689 (1966).
  11. J. I. Markoff and J. F. Sturr, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 61, 1530 (1971).
  12. G. A. Fry, Am. J. Optom. Arch. Am. Acad. Optom. 25, 162 (1948).
  13. M. Alpern, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 43, 648 (1953).
  14. N. Weisstein and R. Growney, Percept. Psychophys. 5, 321 (1969).
  15. N. Weisstein, in Visual Psychophysics, edited by D. Jameson and L. M. Hurvich (Springer, Heidelberg, 1972). The hypothesis that metacontrast is a cortical interaction is supported by the dichoptic transfer of the effect, the time delay for which the mask is most effective, and the dependence of metacontrast on both target and mask as patterns.
  16. S. I. Cox, W. N. Dember, and M. F. Sherrick, Psychon. Sci. 17, 205 (1969).
  17. W. R. Uttal, Percept. Psychophys. 7, 321 (1970).
  18. M. S. Mayzner and M. E. Tresselt, Psychon. Sci. 17, 77 (1969).
  19. S. S. Stevens, Percept. Psychophys. 1, 96 (1966).
  20. P. H. Schiller and M. C. Smith, Percept. Psychophys. 3, 237 (1968).
  21. What is strictly appropriate for measuring the variability of a geometric mean is a standard deviation computed with the log data, analogous to the computation of the geometric mean. The standard deviations computed in this manner are quite small, however, and can be misleading in describing the actual variability of the data; the range of standard deviation is considerably compressed.
  22. This approximation can be obtained by taking the derivative of the convolution integral (see introduction) at a particular point, p, at the edge of the target [we assumed θ(- x) =θ(x)]. We solved for the weighting function so that [Equations], where dR is approximated by the difference between the magnitude estimations (ME2-ME1) corresponding to the change of distance along one dimension, x, and where dx is approximated by the difference between two successive mask sizes (M2-M1). See Thomas (Ref. 4) for a similar procedure.
  23. T. N. Cornsweet, Visual Perception (Academic, New York, 1970).
  24. On the other hand, the edge mechanism involved in brightness might require a smaller target as an impulse function, or generally, metacontrast might not be an edge effect at all but a function of some larger detector cell for brightness. In either case, under the assumption of linearity, as targets get narrower and approach the width of an impulse, the computed functions should approach the actual weighting function.
  25. A. G. Goldstein, Percept. Psychophys. 7, 28 (1970).
  26. H. H. Matteson, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 59, 1461 (1969).
  27. F. Ratliff, Mach Bands: Quantitative Studies on Neural Networks in the Retina (Holden-Day, San Francisco, 1965).
  28. G. Sperling, Percept. Psychophys. 8, 143 (1970).
  29. M. S. Mayzner, M. H. Blatt, W. H. Bushsbaum, R. T. Friedel, P. E. Goodwin, D. Kanon, A. Kelman, and W. D. Nilsson, Psychon. Sci. 3, 79 (1965).
  30. D. H. Hubel and T. N. Wiesel, J. Physiol. (London) 195, 215 (1968).

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.

« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited