OSA's Digital Library

Journal of the Optical Society of America A

Journal of the Optical Society of America A


  • Vol. 16, Iss. 3 — Mar. 1, 1999
  • pp: 647–653

Why use noise?

Denis G. Pelli and Bart Farell  »View Author Affiliations

JOSA A, Vol. 16, Issue 3, pp. 647-653 (1999)

View Full Text Article

Enhanced HTML    Acrobat PDF (1790 KB)

Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools



Measuring the dependence of visual sensitivity on parameters of the visual stimulus is a mainstay of vision science. However, it is not widely appreciated that visual sensitivity is a product of two factors that are each invariant with respect to many properties of the stimulus and task. By estimating these two factors, one can isolate visual processes more easily than by using sensitivity measures alone. The underlying idea is that noise limits all forms of communication, including vision. As an empirical matter, it is often useful to measure the human observer’s threshold with and without a noise background added to the display, to disentangle the observer’s ability from the observer’s intrinsic noise. And when we know how much noise there is, it is often useful to calculate ideal performance of the task at hand, as a benchmark for human performance. This strips away the intrinsic difficulty of the task to reveal a pure measure of human ability. Here we show how to do the factoring of sensitivity into efficiency and equivalent noise, and we document the invariances of the two factors.

© 1999 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
(330.5510) Vision, color, and visual optics : Psychophysics
(330.7310) Vision, color, and visual optics : Vision

Original Manuscript: September 10, 1998
Revised Manuscript: November 3, 1998
Manuscript Accepted: November 4, 1998
Published: March 1, 1999

Denis G. Pelli and Bart Farell, "Why use noise?," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 16, 647-653 (1999)

Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  


  1. For examples, see T. N. Cornsweet, Visual Perception (Academic, New York, 1970).
  2. We are using the terms “factor” and “product” loosely, referring to both multipliers and divisors.
  3. A. Rose, “The sensitivity performance of the human eye on an absolute scale,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 38, 196–208 (1948). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. W. P. Tanner, T. G. Birdsall, “Definitions of d′ and η as psychophysical measures,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 30, 922–928 (1958). [CrossRef]
  5. A. van Meeteren, H. B. Barlow, “The statistical efficiency for detecting sinusoidal modulation of average dot density in random figures,” Vision Res. 21, 765–777 (1981). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. A. E. Burgess, R. F. Wagner, R. J. Jennings, H. B. Barlow, “Efficiency of human visual signal discrimination,” Science 214, 93–94 (1981). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. D. G. Pelli, “Effects of visual noise,” Ph.D. dissertation (Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK, 1981).
  8. D. G. Pelli, “The quantum efficiency of vision,” in Vision: Coding and Efficiency, C. Blakemore, ed. (Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990), pp. 3–24.
  9. G. E. Legge, D. Kersten, A. E. Burgess, “Contrast discrimination in noise,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 4, 391–404 (1987). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. M. S. Banks, W. S. Geisler, P. J. Bennett, “The physical limits of grating visibility,” Vision Res. 27, 1915–1924 (1987). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. W. S. Geisler, “Sequential ideal-observer analysis of visual discriminations,” Psychol. Rev. 96, 267–314 (1989). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. A. J. Ahumada, “Putting the visual system noise back in the picture,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 4, 2372–2378 (1987). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. H. B. Barlow, D. G. Pelli, eds., special issue on the statistical efficiency of natural and artificial vision, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 4(12) (1987) and J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 5(4) (1988), Pts. 1 and 2, respectively.
  14. White noise is indistinguishable, by the system under study, from noise whose samples are all stochastically independent. In practice, the noise samples (checks) are usually created independently, and it is enough to make sure the checks are too small to be resolved. Thus the power spectral density is constant over the range of frequencies that affect the system under study. Typically one achieves this by displaying a random checkerboard, each cell randomly black or white, or sampled from a truncated Gaussian distribution, with checks no bigger than one quarter of the period of the grating to be detected (Ref. 15), since detection of the grating is mediated by an octave-wide channel. When the mediating mechanism is unknown, the relevant band is still restricted by the visual optics. Checks finer than 2 per cycle of the optical cutoff frequency will produce white noise.
  15. H. Kukkonen, J. Rovamo, R. Näsänen, “Masking potency and whiteness of noise at various noise check sizes,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. 36, 513–518 (1995).
  16. A. E. Burgess, “The Rose model, revisited,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 16, 633–646 (1999). [CrossRef]
  17. H. B. Barlow, “Temporal and spatial summation in human vision at different background intensities,” J. Physiol. (London) 141, 337–350 (1958).
  18. A. E. Burgess, X. Li, C. K. Abbey, “Visual signal detectability with two noise components: anomalous masking effects,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 14, 2420–2442 (1997). [CrossRef]
  19. A. E. Burgess, “Prewhitening revisited,” in Medical Imaging, 1998: Visual Perception, H. L. Kundel, ed., Proc. SPIE3340, 55–64 (1998). [CrossRef]
  20. Note a subtle difference in notation. Tanner and Birdsall (Ref. 4) used one-sided power spectral density N0, whereas we use the two-sided N=2-kN0, where k is the dimensionality of the noise (e.g., k=2 for two-dimensional space), which simplifies the equations (see Ref. 8).
  21. H. B. Barlow, “Retinal and central factors in human vision limited by noise, in Vertebrate Photoreception, B. Barlow, P. Fatt, eds. (Academic, New York, 1977).
  22. P. B. Elliott, “Appendix 1—Tables of d′,” in Signal Detection and Recognition by Human Observers, J. S. Swets, ed. (Wiley, New York, 1964), pp. 651–684.
  23. D. G. Pelli, C. W. Burns, B. Farell, D. C. Moore, “Identifying letters,” Vision Res. (to be published).
  24. K. R. Gegenfurtner, D. C. Kiper, “Contrast detection in luminance and chromatic noise,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 9, 1880–1888 (1992). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. A. Burgess, H. B. Barlow, “The precision of numerosity discrimination in arrays of random dots,” Vision Res. 23, 811–820 (1983). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. J. M. Harris, A. J. Parker, “Efficiency of stereopsis in random-dot stereograms,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 9, 14–24 (1992). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. J. A. Solomon, D. G. Pelli, “The visual filter mediating letter identification,” Nature (London) 369, 395–397 (1994). [CrossRef]
  28. N. Majaj, D. G. Pelli, P. Kurshan, M. Palomares, “The role of spatial frequency channels in letter identification,” Vision Res. (to be published).
  29. M. Raghavan, “Sources of visual noise,” Ph.D. dissertation (Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, 1995).
  30. The fivefold deviation from constant efficiency is only 5-fold in contrast because efficiency, like energy, is proportional to squared contrast. Parish and Sperling [D. H. Parish, G. Sperling, “Object spatial frequencies, retinal spatial frequencies, noise, and the efficiencies of letter discrimination,” Vision Res. 31, 1399–1416 (1991)] found a hint of this nonzero slope over the 32:1 range of size that they tested. [CrossRef]
  31. J. Rovamo, V. Virsu, R. Näsänen, “Cortical magnification factor predicts the photopic contrast sensitivity of peripheral vision,” Nature (London) 271, 54–56 (1978). [CrossRef]
  32. A. Burgess, “Image quality, the ideal observer, and human performance of radiologic decision tasks,” Acad. Radiol. 2, 522–526 (1995). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. J. G. Robson, “Spatial and temporal contrast-sensitivity functions of the visual system,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 56, 1141–1142 (1966). [CrossRef]
  34. H. B. Barlow, “A method of determining the overall quantum efficiency of visual discriminations,” J. Physiol. (London) 160, 155–168 (1962).
  35. H. B. Barlow, “Measurements of the quantum efficiency of discrimination in human scotopic vision,” J. Physiol. (London) 160, 169–188 (1962).
  36. W. P. Tanner, J. A. Swets, “A decision-making theory of visual detection,” Psychol. Rev. 61, 401–409 (1954); “The human use of information. I. Signal detection for the case of the signal known exactly,” Trans IRE PGIT-4, 213–221 (1954). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. A. Rose, “Quantum effects in human vision,” Adv. Biol. Med. Phys. 5, 211–242 (1957). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. N. S. Nagaraja, “Effect of luminance noise on contrast thresholds,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 54, 950–955 (1964). [CrossRef]
  39. A. van Meeteren, J. Boogaard, “Visual contrast sensitivity with ideal image intensifiers,” Optik (Stuttgart) 37, 179–191 (1973).
  40. R. W. Engstrom, “Quantum efficiency of the eye determined by comparison with a TV camera,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 64, 1706–1710 (1974). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. A. Burgess, “Visual signal detection. III. On Bayesian use of prior knowledge and cross correlation,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 2, 1498–1507 (1985). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. B. S. Tjan, W. L. Braje, G. E. Legge, D. Kersten, “Human efficiency for recognizing 3-D objects in luminance noise,” Vision Res. 35, 3053–3069 (1995). [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.


Fig. 1 Fig. 2

« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited