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. 14, Iss. 5 — May. 1, 1997
  • pp: 972–983

Human contrast sensitivity in coherent Maxwellian view: effect of coherent noise and comparison with speckle

A. Felipe, J. M. Artigas, A. M. Pons, and M. J. Buades  »View Author Affiliations


JOSA A, Vol. 14, Issue 5, pp. 972-983 (1997)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.14.000972


View Full Text Article

Enhanced HTML    Acrobat PDF (652 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

Lasers have been used in vision for measuring the neural contrast sensitivity function (CSF) by forming interference fringes on the retina. We distinguish among three kinds of illumination with lasers: incoherent (without noise), Maxwellian or coherent (with coherent noise), and diffuse coherent (with speckle). The three have different characteristics and different CSF’s. A coherent imaging system is designed to measure the CSF with fully coherent illumination. This is the CSF of the whole visual system, although it is measured with gratings imaged on the retina. It therefore differs from the neural CSF’s measured by other authors with partially coherent illumination. However, the neural CSF’s are also obtained in this study with and without noise. The effects of coherent noise and speckle on both the visual system and neural sensitivities are studied and compared. Coherent noise differs from speckle in the following ways: (1) It behaves as a high-pass filter, reducing sensitivity in the low-spatial-frequency range, whereas speckle is a low-pass filter; (2) quantitatively, coherent noise reduces neural sensitivity by a factor km with a maximum value between 4 and 6, whereas speckle reduces neural sensitivity by a factor ks with a maximum value of 25 (1.4 log units) for a 3-mm pupil and up to 35 (1.55 log units) for a 1-mm pupil; (3) the masking effect of the coherent noise is affected by changes in luminance but not by changes in pupil diameter; however, the pupil size is the main parameter affecting the masking effect of the speckle.

© 1997 Optical Society of America

History
Original Manuscript: February 22, 1996
Revised Manuscript: October 4, 1996
Manuscript Accepted: October 21, 1996
Published: May 1, 1997

Citation
A. Felipe, J. M. Artigas, A. M. Pons, and M. J. Buades, "Human contrast sensitivity in coherent Maxwellian view: effect of coherent noise and comparison with speckle," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 14, 972-983 (1997)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?URI=josaa-14-5-972


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. Y. Le Grand, “La formation des images rétiniennes. Sur un mode de vision éliminant les défautes optiques de l’oeil,” C. R. Acad. Sci.200, 490 (1935). Referenced in Y. Le Grand, Optique Physiologique (Masson et CIE, Paris, 1972), Vol. III, p. 113.
  2. G. M. Byram, “The physical and photochemical basis of visual resolving power. Part II. Visual acuity and the photochemistry of the retina,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 34, 718–738 (1944). [CrossRef]
  3. B. O’Brien, Untitled communication about the resolving power of the eye. “National Bureau Standard Symposium on Optical Image Evaluation” Washington 1951. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 42, 74 (1952).
  4. F. W. Campbell, D. G. Green, “Optical and retinal factors affecting visual resolution,” J. Physiol. 181, 576–593 (1965).
  5. D. R. Williams, “Visibility of interference fringes near the resolution limit,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 2, 1087–1093 (1985). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. N. J. Coletta, V. Sharma, “Effects of luminance and spatial noise on interferometric contrast sensitivity,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 12, 2244–2251 (1995). [CrossRef]
  7. M. Born, E. Wolf, Principles of Optics, 6th ed. (Pergamon, Oxford, 1980), Chap. X, pp. 491–508.
  8. J. M. Artigas, A. Felipe, M. J. Buades, “Contrast sensitivity of the visual system in speckle imagery,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 11, 2345–2349 (1994). [CrossRef]
  9. M. Aguilar, A. Felipe, J. M. Artigas, “Coherence of light and visual acuity: the influence of the pupil,” Atti Fond. Giorgio Ronchi 41, 81–97 (1986).
  10. J. M. Artigas, A. Felipe, “Effect of luminance on photopic visual acuity in the presence of laser speckle,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 5, 1767–1771 (1988). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. S. Lowenthal, D. Joyeux, “Speckle removal by a slowly moving diffuser associated with a motionless diffuser,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 61, 847–851 (1971). [CrossRef]
  12. G. Westheimer, “The Maxwellian view,” Vision Res. 6, 669–682 (1966). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. R. W. Nygaard, T. E. Frunkes, “Calibration of the retinal illuminance provided by Maxwellian views,” Vision Res. 22, 433–434 (1982). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. W. N. Charman, H. Whitefoot, “Pupil diameter and the depth-of-field of the human eye as measured by laser speckle,” Opt. Acta. 24, 1211–1216 (1977). [CrossRef]
  15. F. L. VanNess, M. A. Bouman, “Spatial modulation transfer in the human eye,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 57, 401–406 (1967). [CrossRef]
  16. G. E. Legge, K. T. Mullen, G. C. Woo, F. W. Campbell, “Tolerance to visual defocus,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 4, 851–863 (1987). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. J. J. McCann, J. A. Hall, “Visibility of low-spatial-frequency sine-wave targets. Dependence on size of average-luminance surround,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 67, 1408 (1977).
  18. J. J. McCann, R. L. Savoy, J. A. Hall, “Visibility of low-frequency sine-wave targets: dependence on number of cycles and surround parameters,” Vision Res. 18, 891–894 (1978). [CrossRef]
  19. D. G. Green, J. A. Swets, “Experimental techniques,” in Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics (Krieger, New York, 1974), App. III, pp. 392–416.
  20. M. Dressler, B. Rassow, “Neural contrast sensitivity measurements with a laser interference system for clinical and scientific screening application,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. 21, 737–744 (1981).
  21. D. R. Williams, “Aliasing in human vision,” Vision Res. 25, 195–205 (1985). [CrossRef]
  22. J. J. DePalma, E. M. Lowry, “Sine-wave response of the visual system. II. Sine-wave and square-wave contrast sensitivity,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 52, 328–335 (1962). [CrossRef]
  23. F. W. Campbell, J. G. Robson, “Application of Fourier analysis to the visibility of gratings,” J. Physiol. 197, 551–566 (1968).
  24. E. R. Howell, R. F. Hess, “The functional area for summation to threshold for sinusoidal gratings,” Vision Res. 18, 369–374 (1978). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. A. Fiorentini, L. Maffei, “Spatial contrast sensitivity of myopic subjects,” Vision Res. 16, 437–438 (1976). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. M. A. Losada, “Influencia de la calidad óptica del ojo en la percepción espacial de contrastes umbrales,” Ph.D. dissertation (Universidad Complutense, Madrid, 1990).
  27. A. S. Patel, “Spatial resolution by the human visual system. The effect of mean retinal illuminance,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 56, 689–694 (1966). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. J. G. Robson, “Spatial and temporal contrast-sensitivity functions of the visual system,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 56, 1141–1142 (1966). [CrossRef]
  29. R. L. Savoy, J. J. McCann, “Visibility of low-spatial-frequency sine-wave targets: dependence on number of cycles,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 65, 343–350 (1975). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. M. J. Wright, “Contrast sensitivity and adaptation as a function of grating length,” Vision Res. 22, 139–149 (1982). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. O. Estévez, C. R. Cavonius, “Low-frequency attenuation in the detection of gratings: sorting out the artifacts,” Vision Res. 16, 497–500 (1976). [CrossRef]
  32. L. E. Arend, “Response of the human eye to spatially sinusoidal gratings at various exposure durations,” Vision Res. 16, 1311–1315 (1976). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. A. Felipe, M. J. Buades, J. M. Artigas, P. Capilla, “The behaviour of the neural CSF in the low spatial frequencies range,” Perception 23 (Suppl.), 79 (1994).
  34. Let us remember that it is unnecessary to divide the Maxwellian CSF by the MTF, since in a coherent imaging system the MTF takes only two values, either zero or unity, depending on whether the points of the spectrum do or do not pass through the pupil.
  35. P. Artal, R. Navarro, “Monochromatic modulation transfer function of the human eye for different pupil diameters: an analytical expression,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 11, 246–249 (1994). [CrossRef]
  36. S. Lowenthal, H. H. Arsenault, “Image formation for coherent diffuse objects: statistical properties,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 60, 1478–1483 (1970). [CrossRef]
  37. A. van Meeteren, “Calculations on the optical modulation transfer function of the human eye for white light,” Opt. Acta 21, 395–412 (1974). [CrossRef]

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