OSA's Digital Library

Journal of the Optical Society of America A

Journal of the Optical Society of America A

| OPTICS, IMAGE SCIENCE, AND VISION

  • Vol. 22, Iss. 2 — Feb. 1, 2005
  • pp: 209–216

Foveal contour interaction: detection and discrimination

Oliver Ehrt and Robert F. Hess  »View Author Affiliations


JOSA A, Vol. 22, Issue 2, pp. 209-216 (2005)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.22.000209


View Full Text Article

Enhanced HTML    Acrobat PDF (590 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

Contour interaction, the detrimental effect of flanking features on the discrimination of optotypes, has been studied mainly close to the visual acuity limit. We were interested to know how these results compare with those for the detection of targets. According to the simplest model of contour interaction, comparable detection effects would be expected. The case for low-level masking would be further strengthened if the form and nature of the dependence on flank separation and flank polarity followed that typically found in studies of lateral spatial masking [Vision Res. 33, 993 (1993)]. Landolt Cs subtending a visual angle of 0.25°, 0.5°, and 1.0° were presented and contrast thresholds for detecting the presence of the Landolt C and discriminating its orientation were measured in five normal subjects as a function of flank separation and flank polarity. The results obtained for the relationship between detection and discrimination depend on the size of the target used. For small letters, discrimination but not detection was significantly affected by flanking bars. For large letters, detection and discrimination were affected to the same extent. However, in this case the effectiveness of opposite-polarity flanks and the finding that facilitation occurred at close, not far, flank separations suggests that the simplest explanation in terms of masking may not be applicable.

© 2005 Optical Society of America

OCIS Codes
(330.1800) Vision, color, and visual optics : Vision - contrast sensitivity
(330.1880) Vision, color, and visual optics : Detection
(330.5510) Vision, color, and visual optics : Psychophysics
(330.6100) Vision, color, and visual optics : Spatial discrimination

History
Original Manuscript: June 25, 2004
Revised Manuscript: August 26, 2004
Manuscript Accepted: July 27, 2004
Published: February 1, 2005

Citation
Oliver Ehrt and Robert F. Hess, "Foveal contour interaction: detection and discrimination," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 22, 209-216 (2005)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?URI=josaa-22-2-209


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. M. C. Flom, F. W. Weymouth, D. Kahneman, “Visual resolution and contour interaction,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 53, 1026–1032 (1963). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. J. A. Stuart, H. M. Burian, “A study of separation difficulty: its relationship to visual acuity in normal and amblyopic eyes,” Am. J. Ophthalmol. 53, 471–477 (1962). [PubMed]
  3. W. Korte, “Über die Gestaltauffasssung im indirekten Sehen,” Z. Psychol. 93, 17–82 (1923).
  4. H. Bouma, “Interaction effects in parafoveal letter recognition,” Nature (London) 226, 177–178 (1970). [CrossRef]
  5. P. Müller, “Über das Sehen der Amblyopen,” Ophthalmologica 121, 143–149 (1951). [CrossRef]
  6. S. T. L. Chung, D. M. Levi, G. E. Legge, “Spatial-frequency and contrast properties of crowding,” Vision Res. 41, 1833–1850 (2001). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. A. Toet, D. M. Levi, “The two-dimensional shape of spatial interaction zones in the parafovea,” Vision Res. 32, 1349–1357 (1992). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. H. Strasburger, L. O. Harvey, I. Rentschler, “Contrast thresholds for identification of numeric characters in direct and eccentric view,” Percept. Psychophys. 49, 495–508 (1991). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. S. J. Leat, W. Li, K. Epp, “Crowding in central and eccentric vision: the effects of contour interaction and attention,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. 40, 504–512 (1999).
  10. U. Polat, D. Sagi, “Lateral interactions between spatial channels: suppression and facilitation revealed by lateral masking experiments,” Vision Res. 33, 993–999 (1993). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. C. B. Williams, R. F. Hess, “Relationship between facilitation at threshold and suprathreshold contour integration,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 15, 2046–2051 (1998). [CrossRef]
  12. J. A. Solomon, A. B. Watson, M. J. Morgan, “Transducer model produces facilitation from opposite-sign flanks,” Vision Res. 39, 987–992 (1999). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. M. Palomares, M. C. LaPutt, D. G. Pelli, “Crowding is unlike masking,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. (Suppl.) 40, 351 (1999).
  14. J. A. Solomon, M. Morgan, “Flanked targets: easier to see, harder to identify,” Perception (Suppl.) 32, 47 (2003).
  15. D. M. Levi, S. A. Klein, S. Hariharan, “Suppressive and facilitatory spatial interactions in foveal vision: foveal crowding is simple contrast masking,” J. Vision 2, 140–166 (2002), p. 140.
  16. R. J. Jacobs, “Visual resolution and contour interaction in the fovea and periphery,” Vision Res. 19, 1187–1195 (1979). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. A. J. Simmers, L. S. Gray, P. V. McGraw, B. Winn, “Contour interaction for high and low contrast optotypes in normal and amblyopic observers,” Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 19, 253–260 (1999). [CrossRef]
  18. R. F. Hess, S. C. Dakin, N. Kapoor, “The foveal ‘crowding’ effect: physics or physiology?” Vision Res. 40, 365–370 (2000). [CrossRef]
  19. R. F. Hess, C. B. Williams, A. Chaudhry, “Contour interaction for an easily resolvable stimulus,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 18, 2414–2418 (2001). [CrossRef]
  20. O. Ehrt, R. F. Hess, C. B. Williams, K. Sher, “Foveal contrast thresholds exhibit spatial-frequency- and polarity-specific contour interactions,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 20, 11–17 (2003). [CrossRef]
  21. H. Strasburger, “Invariance of the psychometric function for character recognition across the visual field,” Percept. Psychophys. 63, 1356–1376 (2001). [CrossRef]
  22. K. E. Higgins, A. Arditi, K. Knoblauch, “Detection and identification of mirror-image letter pairs in central and peripheral vision,” Vision Res. 36, 331–337 (1996). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. F. A. Wichmann, N. J. Hill, “The psychometric function: I. Fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit,” Percept. Psychophys. 63, 1293–1313 (2001). [CrossRef]
  24. L. A. Olzak, J. P. Thomas, “Neural recoding in human pattern vision: model and mechanisms,” Vision Res. 39, 231–256 (1999). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. J. P. Thomas, “Detection and identification: how are they related?” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 2, 1457–1467 (1985). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. J. P. Thomas, “Effect of eccentricity on the relationship between detection and identification,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 4, 1599–1605 (1987). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

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.

Figures

Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3
 
Fig. 4
 

Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited