OSA's Digital Library

Journal of the Optical Society of America

Journal of the Optical Society of America

  • Vol. 66, Iss. 2 — Feb. 1, 1976
  • pp: 131–138

Monkey contrast threshold for aperiodic patterns

Thomas H. Harding and J. Terry Yates  »View Author Affiliations


JOSA, Vol. 66, Issue 2, pp. 131-138 (1976)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.66.000131


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (1126 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

A monkey’s and a human subject’s threshold responses were measured for single- and double-bar patterns of high spatial frequency. The observed values were compared to predicted values which were derived from each subject’s contrast sensitivity function. A theoretical peak-to-trough threshold mechanism was assumed in the calculations. The threshold predictions, which are couched in the assumption that the spatial visual system is linear near its threshold, were found to be close to observed values. The results are interpreted to suggest that the monkey visual system analyzes spatial information in qualitatively and quantitatively similar ways to human, and that a linear theory may be used for analyses of primate vision.

© 1976 Optical Society of America

Citation
Thomas H. Harding and J. Terry Yates, "Monkey contrast threshold for aperiodic patterns," J. Opt. Soc. Am. 66, 131-138 (1976)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?URI=josa-66-2-131


Sort:  Author  |  Journal  |  Reset

References

  1. R. L. DeValois and G. H. Jacobs, in Behavior of Nonhuman Primates, edited by A. M. Schrier and F. Stollnitz (Academic, New York, 1971), pp. 107–157.
  2. W . F. Grether, J. Comp. Psychol. 31, 23(1941); A. Cowey and C. M. Ellis, J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol, 64, 80 (1967); C. R. Cavonius and D. O. Robbins, J. Physiol. Lond. 232, 239 (1973).
  3. R. L. DeValois, H. Morgan, and D. M. Snodderly, Vision Res. 14, 75 (1974).
  4. J. T. Yates and T. H. Harding (unpublished).
  5. J. T. Yates and T. H. Harding (unpublished).
  6. F. W. Campbell, R. H. S. Carpenter, and J. Z. Levinson, J. Physiol. Lond. 204, 283 (1969).
  7. O. H. Schade, Sr., J. Opt. Soc. Am. 46, 721 (1956).
  8. F. W. Campbell and D. G. Green, J. Physiol. Lond. 181, 576 (1965).
  9. Contrast, expressed as a percentage=100 (Lmax- Lmin)/(Lmax+Lmin), where Lmax and Lmin are maximum and minimum luminances.
  10. J. T. Yates and T. H. Harding, Comput. Biomed. Res. 7, 200 (1974).
  11. D. S. Blough, Science 121, 793 (1955); J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1, 31 (1958); and in Operant Behavior: Areas of Research and Application, edited by W. K. Honig (Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1966).
  12. T. H. Harding and J. T. Yates, Psycho, a PDP-12 Programming System. DECUS No. 12–151, October 5, 1973, DECUS program library, Digital Equipment Corporation.
  13. Further criteria such as a small standard deviation of the response distribution, a unimodal response distribution, and equal numbers of left, and right-lever tracking responses during a session were used to assess the "accuracy" of the data. If data from several sessions were acceptable for any given spatial frequency, then all the data were weighted with regard to the above criteria and the "best" data were selected. Such manipulations made only very minor changes in the fine grain of the data.
  14. In order to convert angular measures to retinal distance measures, the posterior nodal distance of the eye must be known. Young and Leary have estimated the posterior nodal distance in human and monkey males to be 17.50 and 12.33 mm, respectively. F. A. Young and G. A. Leary, Am. J. Phys. Anthrop. 28, 377 (1973). These measures provide for conversion factors of 3.274 (human) and 4.647 (monkey) in order to convert frequency expressed as c/deg to frequency expressed as c/mm.
  15. A. J. Van Doorn, J. J. Koenderink, and M. A. Bouman, Kybernetik 10, 223 (1972).
  16. F. Ratliff, Mach bands: Quantitative Studies on Neural Networks in the Retina (Holden-Day, San Francisco, 1965).
  17. R. W. Rodieck, Vision Res. 5, 583 (1965).
  18. C. Enroth-Cugell and J. G. Robson, J. Physiol. Lond. 187, 517 (1966).
  19. C. Enroth-Cugell and L. H. Pinto, J. Physiol. Lond. 220, 403 (1972); 220, 441 (1972).
  20. A. S. Patel, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 56, 689 (1966).
  21. H. B. Barlow, R. Fitzhugh, and S. W. Kuffler, J. Physiol. Lond. 137, 338 (1957).
  22. F. W. Campbell and J. G. Robson, J. Physiol. Lond. 197, 551 (1968); J. Hoekstra, D. P. J. van der Goot, G. van den Brink, and F. A. Bilsen, Vision Res. 14, 365 (1974); R. L. Savoy and J. J. McCann, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 65, 343 (1975).
  23. I. D. G. Macleod and A. Rosenfeld, University of Maryland Computer Science Center Tech. Report Nos. TR-205 and TR-209 (GJ-33258X) 1972 (unpublished); B. E. Carter and G. B. Henning, J. Physiol. Lond. 219, 355 (1971).
  24. In order to fit the single-bar data, Campbell et al. (Ref. 6) needed to shift their predictions along the spatial frequency axis, and to scale the magnitudes on the sensitivity axis. The scale factor a in Eq. (8) was chosen to provide the best fit to the single-bar data.
  25. The scale factor a in Eq. (8) was chosen to provide the best fit to the single-bar data. No shift of the prediction along the spatial frequency axis was required.

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