OSA's Digital Library

Journal of the Optical Society of America

Journal of the Optical Society of America

  • Vol. 70, Iss. 11 — Nov. 1, 1980
  • pp: 1306–1310

Contrast sensitivity measures and accuracy of image stabilization systems

Ülker Tulunay-Keesey and Robert Michael Jones  »View Author Affiliations

JOSA, Vol. 70, Issue 11, pp. 1306-1310 (1980)

View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (768 KB)

Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools



Recently, it has been argued that the precision of image stabilization is reflected in the magnitude of the differences in contrast sensitivity measures obtained with and without image stabilization. Here we present two sets of data, one showing large and the other small differences in contrast sensitivity to sinusoidal gratings viewed under stabilized and unstabilized, normal conditions. Both sets of data were obtained by the use of the same apparatus optimized for image stabilization. Large differences occur between unstabilized and stabilized measures of sensitivity only when the observer is allowed to scan the unstabilized test grating, or to prolong inspection of the stabilized target thus allowing for disappearance of the stabilized image. On the other hand, when the target is presented for a few seconds and the observer fixates on it, normal image motion, which results from eye movements of fixation, is found to enhance contrast sensitivity by only a small amount. It would appear, therefore, that the extent of reduction of sensitivity for a stabilized grating cannot be used as an index of the precision of image stabilization.

© 1980 Optical Society of America

Ülker Tulunay-Keesey and Robert Michael Jones, "Contrast sensitivity measures and accuracy of image stabilization systems," J. Opt. Soc. Am. 70, 1306-1310 (1980)

Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset


  1. J. Krauskopf, "Effect of retinal image motion for maintained vision," J. Opt. Soc. Am. 47, 740–744 (1957).
  2. J. Nachmias, "Effect of exposure duration on visual contrast sensitivity with square wave gratings," J. Opt. Soc. Am. 57, 421–427 (1967).
  3. D. S. Gilbert and D. H. Fender, "Contrast thresholds measured with stabilized and non-stabilized sine-wave gratings," Opt. Acta 16, 191–204 (1969).
  4. A. Watanabe, T. Mori, and K. Hiwathashi, "Spatial sine-wave responses of the human visual system," Vision Res. 8, 1245–1263 (1968).
  5. U. Tulunay-Keesey and R. M. Jones, "The effect of micromovements of the eye and exposure duration on contrast sensitivity," Vision Res. 16, 481–488 (1976).
  6. U. Tulunay-Keesey and B. J. Bennis, "Effects of stimulus onset and image motion on contrast sensitivity," Vision Res. 19, 767–776 (1979).
  7. D. H. Kelly, "Visual contrast sensitivity," Opt. Acta 24, 107–129 (1977).
  8. D. H. Kelly, "Motion and vision. I. Stabilized images of stationary gratings," J. Opt. Soc. Am. 69, 1266–1274 (1979).
  9. D. H. Kelly and R. E. Savoie, "A study of sine-wave contrast sensitivity by two psychophysical methods," Percept. Psychophys. 14, 313–318 (1973).
  10. C. Blakemore and F. W. Campbell, "On the existence of neurones in the human visual system selectively sensitive to the orientation and size of retinal images," J. Physiol. (London) 203, 237–260 (1969).
  11. R. M. Jones and U. Tulunay-Keesey, "Local retinal adaptation and spatial frequency channels," Vision Res. 15, 1239–1244 (1975).
  12. R. M. Jones and U. Tulunay-Keesey, "An active feedback system for stabilizing visual images," IEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. BME-19, 29–33 (1972).
  13. R. M. Jones and U. Tulunay-Keesey, "Accuracy of image stabilization by an optical-electronic feedback system," Vision Res. 15, 57–61 (1975).
  14. H. B. Barlow, "Slippage of contact lenses and other artifacts in relation to fading and regeneration of supposedly stable retinal images," Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 51, 36–51 (1963).
  15. L. A. Riggs and A. H. L. Shick, "Accuracy of retinal image stabilization achieved with a plane mirror on a tightly fitting contact lens," Vision Res. 8, 159–169 (1968).
  16. C. F. Stromeyer, Y. Y. Zeevi, and S. Klein, "Response of visual mechanisms to stimulus onsets and offsets," J. Opt. Soc. Am. 69, 1351–1354 (1979).
  17. B. Breitmeyer and B. Julesz, "The role of on and off transients in determining the psychophysical spatial frequency response," Vision Res. 15, 411–416 (1975).
  18. Sekular20 has pointed out that phase alternating sinusoidal gratings can be expressed mathematically as the sum of two gratings drifting in opposite directions. This concept can be extended to any target whose contrast varies as a function of time, as when contrast is manipulated manually to determine thresholds. In this sense, none of the stimuli used by us or by others is free of moving components. In the case of the Gaussian presentation we used, the temporal variations can be specified. Each grating has a steady component at a fixed frequency and two components of the same frequency but half amplitude moving in opposite directions, with velocities that depend on the duration of the waveform. By assuming that the Gaussian is closely related to the raised cosine, it has been calculated that for a 5-cpd grating, with a period of 15 s, for example, the moving components have a velocity of 0.7 min arc/s.
  19. Kelly8 states that our data in Ref. 5 shows unaccountably low contrast sensitivity. These data were gathered on a subject with a generally low spatial contrast sensitivity (UTK) with the method of adjustment under careful fixation, conditions favorable to reduction of sensitivity by virtue of lengthy exposure to contrast. Our data in the same paper5 as well as in subsequent papers6 show a peak of contrast sensitivity between the frequencies of 2 and 4 cpd at contrast values ranging between 0.3 and 1%, levels as low as have been reported in the literature so far.
  20. L. E. Arend, Jr., "Temporal determinants of the form of the spatial contrast threshold MFT," Vision Res. 16, 1035–1042 (1976).
  21. U. Tulunay-Keesey and B. Bennis, "Fading of after-images and stabilized images," Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. Suppl. 18, 139 (1979).
  22. R. Sekular, A. Pantle, and E. Levinson, "Physiological Basis of Motion Perception," in Handbook of Physiology, VII Perception, edited by R. Held, W. Leibowitz, and H. L. Teuber (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1978).

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