OSA's Digital Library

Journal of the Optical Society of America A

Journal of the Optical Society of America A


  • Vol. 15, Iss. 5 — May. 1, 1998
  • pp: 1036–1047

Spatial attention: effect of position uncertainty and number of distractor patterns on the threshold-versus-contrast function for contrast discrimination

John M. Foley and Wolfgang Schwarz  »View Author Affiliations

JOSA A, Vol. 15, Issue 5, pp. 1036-1047 (1998)

View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (302 KB)

Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools



Our goal is to integrate knowledge about contrast discrimination with knowledge about spatial attention effects. An experiment is described that measures the effects of position uncertainty, number of distractors, and contrast on the contrast discrimination threshold in a fully crossed factorial design. The threshold-versus-contrast function is nonmonotonic in all conditions, decreasing and then increasing as contrast increases. Increasing uncertainty and/or the number of distractors increases thresholds, and there are interactions among the three variables indicating that uncertainty and distractor number have different effects on detection as distractor contrast varies. The results are well accounted for by a model that combines a nonlinear excitation/divisive inhibition model of pattern mechanisms with a noise-limited model of the decision process.

© 1998 Optical Society of America

OCIS Codes
(330.1800) Vision, color, and visual optics : Vision - contrast sensitivity
(330.4060) Vision, color, and visual optics : Vision modeling
(330.5000) Vision, color, and visual optics : Vision - patterns and recognition
(330.5510) Vision, color, and visual optics : Psychophysics
(330.6100) Vision, color, and visual optics : Spatial discrimination

John M. Foley and Wolfgang Schwarz, "Spatial attention: effect of position uncertainty and number of distractor patterns on the threshold-versus-contrast function for contrast discrimination," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 15, 1036-1047 (1998)

Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset


  1. J. M. Foley, “Human luminance pattern vision mechanisms: masking experiments require a new model,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 11, 1710–1719 (1994).
  2. T. E. Cohn and D. J. Lasley, “Detectability of a luminance increment: effect of uncertainty,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 64, 1715–1719 (1974).
  3. E. T. Davis, P. Kramer, and N. Graham, “Uncertainty about spatial frequency, spatial position, or contrast of visual patterns,” Percept. Psychophys. 33, 20–28 (1983).
  4. J. Laarni, J. Nasanen, J. Rovamo, and J. Saarinen, “Performance in simple visual search at threshold contrasts,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. 37, 1706–1710 (1996).
  5. A. M. Treisman and S. Gormican, “Feature analysis in early vision: evidence from search asymmetries,” Psychol. Rev. 95, 15–48 (1988).
  6. J. R. Bergen and B. Julesz, “Parallel versus serial processing in rapid pattern discrimination,” Nature (London) 303, 696–698 (1983).
  7. J. R. Bergen and B. Julesz, “Rapid discrimination of visual patterns,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern. SMC-19, 857–863 (1983).
  8. J. Palmer, C. T. Ames, and D. T. Lindsey, “Measuring the effect of attention on simple visual search,” J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 19, 108–130 (1993).
  9. P. Verghese and K. Nakayama, “Stimulus discriminability in visual search,” Vision Res. 34, 2453–2467 (1994).
  10. A. M. Treisman, “Perceptual grouping and attention in visual search for features and for objects,” J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 8, 194–214 (1982).
  11. A. M. Treisman and G. Gelade, “A feature-integration theory of attention,” Cogn. Psychol. 12, 97–136 (1980).
  12. J. Palmer, “Set-size effects in visual search: the effect of attention is independent of stimulus for simple tasks,” Vision Res. 34, 1703–1721 (1994).
  13. J. Palmer, “Attention in visual search: distinguishing four causes of a set-size effect,” Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 4, 118–123 (1995).
  14. J. H. R. Maunsell, “The brain’s world: representation of targets in the visual cortex,” Science 270, 764–769 (1995).
  15. R. Hubner, “Specific effects of spatial-frequency uncertaintyand different cue types on contrast detection: data and models,” Vision Res. 36, 3429–3439 (1996).
  16. J. Nachmias and R. Sansbury, “Grating contrast: discrimination may be better than detection,” Vision Res. 14, 1039–1042 (1974).
  17. G. E. Legge and J. M. Foley, “Contrast masking in human vision,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 70, 458–471 (1980).
  18. J. M. Foley and G. E. Legge, “Contrast detection and near-threshold discrimination in human vision,” Vision Res. 21, 1041–1053 (1981).
  19. N. V. S. Graham, Visual Pattern Analyzers (Oxford U. Press, New York, 1989).
  20. M. L. Shaw, “Attending to multiple sources of information,” Cogn. Psychol. 14, 353–409 (1982).
  21. G. M. Boynton and J. M. Foley, “Temporal sensitivity of human pattern vision mechanisms determined by masking,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. (Suppl.) 35, 1396 (1994); J. M. Foley, “Spatial phase sensitivity of human pattern vision mechanisms determined by masking,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. (Suppl.) 35, 1900 (1994).
  22. C. C. Chen, J. M. Foley, and D. H. Brainard, “A masking analysis of the chromatic properties of pattern detection mechanisms,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. (Suppl.) 37, 1264 (1996).
  23. J. C. Falmagne, Elements of Psychophysical Theory (Oxford U. Press, New York, 1985), pp. 137–143.
  24. J. I. Yellott, “The relationship between Luce’s choice axiom, Thurstone’s theory of comparative judgment and the double-exponential distribution,” J. Math. Psychol. 15, 109–144 (1977). The derivation of Eq. (A3) of the present paper is Lemma 6 on p. 123 of this reference.
  25. J. Ross and H. D. Speed, “Contrast adaptation and contrast masking in human vision,” Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. B 246, 61–69 (1991).
  26. M. I. Posner, C. R. R. Snyder, and B. J. Davidson, “Attention and the detection of signals,” J. Exp. Psychol. 109, 160–174 (1980).
  27. A. B. Watson, K. R. K. Nielson, A. Poirson, A. Fitzhugh, A. Bilson, K. Ngunyen, and A. J. Ahumada, Jr., “Use of a raster framebuffer in vision research,” Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 18, 587–594 (1986).
  28. A. B. Watson and D. G. Pelli, “QUEST: a Bayesian adaptive psychometric method,” Percept. Psychophys. 33, 113–120 (1983).
  29. P. J. Rousseeuw, “Tutorial to robust statistics,” J. Chemometrics 5, 1–20 (1991).
  30. J. M. Foley, “Lateral and superimposed pattern masking: one model describes both,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. (Suppl.) 38, S2 (1997).
  31. J. Reynolds, T. Pasternak, and R. Desimone, “Attention in-creases contrast sensitivity of cells in Macaque area V4,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. (Suppl.) 38, S687 (1997).
  32. G. Sperling and B. Dosher, “Strategy and optimization in human information processing,” in Handbook of Perception and Performance, K. Boff, L. Kaufman, and J. Thomas, eds. (Wiley, New York, 1986), Vol. 1.
  33. J. A. Solomon, N. Lavie, and M. J. Morgan, “Contrast discrimination function: spatial cuing effects,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 14, 2443–2448 (1997).
  34. J. M. Foley and C. C. Chen, “Analysis of the effect of pattern adaptation on pattern pedestal effects: a two-process model,” Vision Res. 37, 2779–2788 (1997).
  35. N. Graham, P. Kramer, and D. Yager, “Signal detection models for multidimensional stimuli: probability distributions and combination rules,” J. Math. Psychol. 31, 366–409 (1987).
  36. W. Schwarz, “Do two eyes really see more than one?” J. Math. Psychol. 36, 269–277 (1992).
  37. The derivation of this equation from assumptions 1 and 2 is well known in the mathematical modeling literature. Holman and Marley proved this, but did not publish their proof. It is published by Luce and Suppes.38 Other proofs are given by Yellott, 24 Falmagne, 23 and Schwarz.39 The Holman–Marley proof starts from the probability density function fj(xj) corresponding to the distribution function [Eq. (A2) of the present paper]. The probability that a particular response xi will be the maximum response is the probability that this response will have a particular value t times the probabilities that all the other responses will have lower values, integrated over all possible values of t: P[xi=maxj=1...n(xj)]=−∞∞ fi(t)j=1...n, j<>i−∞tfj(u)dudt. The solution of this equation yields Eq. (A3) of the present paper.
  38. R. D. Luce and P. Suppes, “Preference, utility, and subjective probability,” in Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, and E. Galanter, E., eds. (Wiley, New York, 1965), Vol. III, pp. 249–410. The proof is theorem 32 on p. 3.
  39. W. Schwarz, “On certain transformations useful for random utility models,” Methodika 6, 8–12 (1992).

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