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. 15, Iss. 11 — Nov. 1, 1998
  • pp: 2801–2808

Effect of noise contrast polarity and temporal asynchrony on visual sensitivity

Kenneth R. Alexander, Wei Xie, Janet P. Szlyk, and Deborah J. Derlacki  »View Author Affiliations


JOSA A, Vol. 15, Issue 11, pp. 2801-2808 (1998)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.15.002801


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (504 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

We evaluated the effect of substitutive noise on contrast sensitivity within the context of linear (Fourier) and nonlinear (non-Fourier) visual processes. Orientation judgments for D6 (sixth spatial derivative of Gaussian) patterns were obtained from three visually normal subjects when random regions of the target and background were occluded by small (1.7 arc min) pixel arrays that were either all of the same contrast polarity or a mixture of equal percentages of negative and positive contrast. The target was presented either synchronously or asynchronously with the occluding elements. Our results indicate that the manipulation of noise characteristics in this way can bias performance either toward a nonlinear process that is insensitive to noise contrast polarity but sensitive to temporal asynchrony or toward a quasi-linear process that is sensitive to noise contrast polarity but insensitive to temporal asynchrony. These findings have relevance to models of the effect of spatial sampling on the visual performance of persons with retinal disease.

© 1998 Optical Society of America

OCIS Codes
(330.1070) Vision, color, and visual optics : Vision - acuity
(330.1800) Vision, color, and visual optics : Vision - contrast sensitivity
(330.5000) Vision, color, and visual optics : Vision - patterns and recognition
(330.5510) Vision, color, and visual optics : Psychophysics
(330.6130) Vision, color, and visual optics : Spatial resolution

Citation
Kenneth R. Alexander, Wei Xie, Janet P. Szlyk, and Deborah J. Derlacki, "Effect of noise contrast polarity and temporal asynchrony on visual sensitivity," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 15, 2801-2808 (1998)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?URI=josaa-15-11-2801


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset

References

  1. J. B. Mulligan and D. I. A. MacLeod, “Visual sensitivity to spatially sampled modulation in human observers,” Vision Res. 31, 895–905 (1991).
  2. A. M. Geller, P. A. Sieving, and D. G. Green, “Effect on grating identification of sampling with degenerate arrays,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 9, 472–477 (1992).
  3. K. R. Alexander, W. Xie, D. J. Derlacki, and J. P. Szlyk, “Effect of spatial sampling on grating resolution and letter identification,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 12, 1825–1833 (1995).
  4. W. Seiple, K. Holopigian, J. P. Szlyk, and V. C. Greenstein, “The effects of random element loss on letter identification: implications for visual acuity loss in patients with retinitis pigmentosa,” Vision Res. 35, 2057–2066 (1995).
  5. W. Xie, K. R. Alexander, M. W. Levine, and R. Priemer, “Power spectrum analysis of degraded visual targets,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. (Suppl.) 37, S732 (1996). The noise replaces or substitutes for the visual target. More formally, the degraded image g can be defined as g(x, y)=c1(x, y)f(x, y)+c2(x, y)h(x, y), where f(x, y) is the target; h(x, y) is another image used to degrade the target (i.e., a random field of occluding elements); and c1(x, y) and c2(x, y) are coefficient arrays. In the case of substitutive noise, c2(x, y)=1−c1(x, y), and c1(x, y)∈ {0, 1}.By comparison, for additive noise, c1=c2= 0.5.
  6. B. L. Beard, D. M. Levi, and S. A. Klein, “Vernier acuity with non-simultaneous targets—the cortical magnification factor estimated by psychophysics,” Vision Res. 37, 325–346 (1997).
  7. C. Chubb and G. Sperling, “Two motion perception mechanisms revealed by distance driven reversal of apparent motion,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86, 2985–2989 (1989).
  8. J. Boulton and C. L. Baker, Jr., “Dependence on stimulus onset asynchrony in apparent motion: evidence for two mechanisms,” Vision Res. 33, 2013–2019 (1993).
  9. N. Graham, J. Beck, and A. Sutter, “Nonlinear processes in spatial-frequency channel models of perceived texture segregation,” Vision Res. 32, 719–743 (1992).
  10. D. M. Levi, V. Sharma, and S. A. Klein, “Feature integration in pattern perception,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 11742–11746 (1997).
  11. L.-M. Lin and H. R. Wilson, “Fourier and non-Fourier pattern discrimination compared,” Vision Res. 36, 1907–1918 (1996).
  12. H. R. Wilson, D. K. McFarlane, and G. C. Phillips, “Spatial frequency tuning of orientation selective units estimated by oblique masking,” Vision Res. 23, 873–882 (1983). D6 patterns are similar in spatial-frequency content to a Gaussian windowed sinusoidal grating or Gabor patch.
  13. W. H. Swanson and E. E. Birch, “Infant spatiotemporal vision: dependence of spatial contrast sensitivity on temporal frequency,” Vision Res. 30, 1033–1048 (1990).
  14. D. G. Pelli and L. Zhang, “Accurate control of contrast on microcomputer displays,” Vision Res. 31, 1337–1350 (1991).
  15. A. C. Naiman and W. Makous, “Spatial non-linearities of grayscale CRT pixels,” in Human Vision, Visual Processing, and Digital Display III, B. E. Rogowitz, ed., Proc. SPIE 1666, 41–56 (1992).
  16. B. J. Fellows, “Chance stimulus sequences for discrimination tasks,” Psychol. Bull. 67, 87–92 (1967).
  17. H. Levitt, “Transformed up–down methods in psychoacoustics,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 49, 467–477 (1971).
  18. A. van Meeteren and J. M. Valeton, “Effects of pictorial noise interfering with visual detection,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 5, 438–444 (1988).
  19. H. R. Wilson, “A neural model of foveal light adaptation and afterimage formation,” Visual Neurosci. 14, 403–423 (1997).
  20. J. Pokorny and V. C. Smith, “Psychophysical signatures associated with magnocellular and parvocellular pathway contrast gain,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 14, 2477–2486 (1997).
  21. Although the stimuli are presented briefly in the pulse-pedestal paradigm, this paradigm favors the PC pathway because both the target and the pedestal are effective stimuli for the MC pathway, which is relatively insensitive to contrast differences under these conditions owing to its nonlinear, saturating contrast gain function. A similar argument can be applied to our brief synchronous condition.

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.


Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited