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: 654–668

Effects of aging on calculation efficiency and equivalent noise

Patrick J. Bennett, Allison B. Sekuler, and Linda Ozin  »View Author Affiliations

JOSA A, Vol. 16, Issue 3, pp. 654-668 (1999)

View Full Text Article

Enhanced HTML    Acrobat PDF (302 KB)

Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools



Contrast sensitivity under photopic conditions declines with age; however, the cause of this decline remains unknown. To address this issue, we measured detection thresholds for sine wave gratings in noise, under various conditions of spatial-frequency uncertainty, and estimated observers’ internal noise and calculation efficiency. Statistical analyses revealed that efficiencies were lower for old (median age at 68 years) than for young (median age at 22 years) observers; no significant differences in internal noise were found. A control experiment ruled out the possibility that reduced retinal illuminance causes the decline in efficiency with age. Our results demonstrate that age-related neural changes play a major role in the decline in contrast sensitivity with age. Possible contributing mechanisms are considered.

© 1999 Optical Society of America

OCIS Codes
(330.1800) Vision, color, and visual optics : Vision - contrast sensitivity
(330.1880) Vision, color, and visual optics : Detection
(330.5000) Vision, color, and visual optics : Vision - patterns and recognition
(330.5510) Vision, color, and visual optics : Psychophysics
(330.7310) Vision, color, and visual optics : Vision

Original Manuscript: November 5, 1998
Manuscript Accepted: November 10, 1998
Published: March 1, 1999

Patrick J. Bennett, Allison B. Sekuler, and Linda Ozin, "Effects of aging on calculation efficiency and equivalent noise," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 16, 654-668 (1999)

Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  


  1. D. W. Kline, “Light, ageing and visual performance,” in The Susceptible Visual Apparatus, J. Marshall, ed. (Macmillan, London, 1991), pp. 150–161.
  2. P. D. Spear, “Neural bases of visual deficits during aging,” Vision Res. 33, 2589–2609 (1993). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. R. Sekuler, A. B. Sekuler, “Visual perception and cognition,” in Oxford Textbook of Geriatric Medicine, J. G. Evans, T. F. Williams, eds. (Oxford University, Oxford, UK, 1992), pp. 572–580.
  4. C. Owsley, K. B. Burton, “Aging and spatial contrast sensitivity: underlying mechanisms and implications for everyday life,” in The Changing Visual System, P. Bagnoli, W. Hodos, eds. (Plenum, New York, 1991), pp. 119–136.
  5. D. B. Elliott, “Contrast sensitivity decline with aging: a neural or optical phenomenon?” Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 7, 415–419 (1987). [CrossRef]
  6. K. B. Burton, C. Owsley, M. E. Sloane, “Aging and neural spatial contrast sensitivity: photopic vision,” Vision Res. 33, 939–946 (1993). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. R. P. Hemenger, “Intraocular light scatter in normal vision loss with age,” Appl. Opt. 23, 1972–1974 (1984). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. N. Nameda, T. Kawara, H. Ohzu, “Human visual spatio-temporal frequency performance as a function of age,” Optom. Vision Sci. 66, 760–765 (1989). [CrossRef]
  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. A. J. Ahumada, A. B. Watson, “Equivalent-noise model for contrast detection and discrimination,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 2, 1133–1139 (1985). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. A. J. Ahumada, “Putting the visual system noise back in the picture,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 4, 2372–2378 (1987). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. 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.
  13. A. E. Burgess, B. Colborne, “Visual signal detection. IV. Observer inconsistency,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 5, 617–627 (1988). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. A. E. Burgess, “High level visual decision efficiencies,” in Vision: Coding and Efficiency, C. Blakemore, ed. (Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990), pp. 431–440.
  15. The performance of a quantum-limited observer is constrained by quantal fluctuations, and therefore one might expect the threshold versus noise curve to intercept the abscissa at the spectral density of the photon noise. However, in our framework photon noise is an external noise added to the stimulus. If it were possible to reduce photon noise, then the quantum-limited threshold would approach zero. Pelli12 showed that the spectral density of photon noise equals the reciprocal of the photon flux and that it is approximately two orders of magnitude less than the spectral density of the equivalent noise estimated in most grating detection experiments. Our experiments used one-dimensional static noise and did not consider the effects of photon noise.
  16. N. S. Nagaraja, “Effect of luminance noise on contrast thresholds,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 54, 950–955 (1964). [CrossRef]
  17. D. Kersten, R. F. Hess, G. T. Plant, “Assessing contrast sensitivity behind cloudy media,” Clin. Vision Sci. 2, 143–158 (1988).
  18. S. Pardhan, J. Gilchrist, G. K. Beh, “Contrast detection in noise: a new method for assessing cataract,” Optom. Vision Sci. 70, 914–922 (1993). [CrossRef]
  19. S. Pardhan, J. Gilchrist, D. B. Elliott, G. K. Beh, “A comparison of sampling efficiency and internal noise level in young and old subjects,” Vision Res. 36, 1641–1648 (1996). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Luminance quantization altered the contrast of the sine wave gratings and noise used in these experiments. The lowest detection thresholds were obtained with the 1 c/deg target with no frequency uncertainty, so the effects of quantization should have been greatest in that condition. We therefore examined the possible effects in that condition. First, in software we re-created the stimulus luminance profiles presented on the screen when pattern contrast was set to detection threshold, and we counted the number of luminance steps in the pattern. At detection threshold (e.g., contrasts of 0.014 and 0.015 for young and old observers, respectively), the gratings had four luminance steps and 95% of the stimulus power was concentrated at the nominal target frequency. The number of luminance steps did not drop below four until stimulus contrast was reduced below 0.01. Thus the quantization effects were small, even for stimuli presented at detection threshold. Next, we examined the raw data to find observers who might have had thresholds below 0.01 by looking for observers who consistently responded correctly for contrasts as low as 0.01. Four old observers and four young observers met this criterion. We then replaced thresholds for those observers with a value of 0.007, which was approximately one half of the average threshold and was the smallest contrast that could be produced with our equipment, and repeated all of our statistical analyses. The results of the new analyses were identical to those reported in Section 3. Thus luminance quantization does not appear to have had a significant effect on our results.
  21. W. H. Press, B. P. Flannery, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, Numerical Recipes in Pascal: The Art of Scientific Computing (Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1989).
  22. Some old observers had trouble manipulating the keyboard while viewing the patterns. For these observers the experimenter pressed the key that corresponded to the pattern indicated verbally by the observer. To eliminate any effects of experimenter bias, the experimenter’s view of the display was blocked during each trial.
  23. A. B. Watson, D. G. Pelli, “quest: a Bayesian adaptive psychometric method,” Percept. Psychophys. 33, 113–120 (1983). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. R. E. Kirk, Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences (Wadsworth, Belmont, Calif., 1968).
  25. Thresholds from individual subjects are available from P. J. Bennett on request.
  26. R. Hübner, “Specific effects of spatial-frequency uncertainty and different cue types on contrast detection: data and models,” Vision Res. 36, 3429–3439 (1996). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. L. A. Jeffress, “Stimulus-oriented approach to detection,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 36, 766–774 (1964). [CrossRef]
  28. For the case in which phase is unknown, the noise and signal-plus-noise distributions for the ideal detector are neither normal nor constant variance. Strictly speaking, therefore, Eq. (5) applies to the detection index dS, not d′. When the distributions are normal and constant variance, dS=d′.
  29. Previous studies have shown that detection versus noise curves obtained from young observers are linear. Pardhan et al.19 obtained similar results with old observers. However, those previous studies used conditions in which position uncertainty was minimized, whereas position uncertainty was maximized in the current experiment. We therefore conducted a preliminary experiment to examine whether contrast versus noise functions were linear in our stimulus conditions. The experiment was identical to the no-uncertainty condition in the main experiment except that four levels of external noise (contrast standard deviations of 0.04, 0.09, 0.16, and 0.25) were used. Four young observers (23–33 years; median age at 24 years) and one old observer (63 years) were tested. Multiple thresholds were obtained at each level of external noise, and the best-fitting line was computed for the data from each observer. In all cases, thresholds were well fit by a straight line (R2>0.87) and the quadratic component of the regression was not statistically significant. Efficiency and equivalent noise were calculated by first fitting the equation E=mN+b to each observer’s data, where E is threshold energy, N is the external noise’s spectral density, m is the line’s slope, and b is the line’s intercept. According to Eq. (6), J=(1/m) * (d′+1/2)2 and Ni=b * J/(d′+1/2)2.
  30. D. Kersten, “Spatial summation in visual noise,” Vision Res. 24, 1977–1990 (1984). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. K. E. Higgens, M. J. Jaffee, R. C. Caruso, F. M. deMonasterio, “Spatial contrast sensitivity: effects of age, test–retest, and psychophysical method,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 5, 2173–2180 (1988). [CrossRef]
  32. C. Owsley, R. Sekuler, D. Siemsen, “Contrast sensitivity throughout adulthood,” Vision Res. 23, 689–699 (1983). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. P. D. Spear, R. J. Moore, C. B. Kim, J. T. Xue, N. Tumosa, “Effects of aging on the primate visual system: spatial and temporal processing by lateral geniculate neurons in young adult and old rhesus monkeys,” J. Neurophysiol. 72, 402–420 (1994). [PubMed]
  34. F. Speranza, G. Moraglia, B. A. Schneider, “Age-related changes in binocular vision: detection of noise-masked targets in young and old observers,” J. Gerontol. B 50B, 114–123 (1995). [CrossRef]
  35. C. D. Creelman, “Detection of signals of uncertain frequency,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 32, 805–810 (1960). [CrossRef]
  36. The simulation consisted of 2AFC trials in which a detector was presented with a noise stimulus and a signal-plus-noise stimulus. The noise stimulus was an array of random numbers drawn from a zero-mean Gaussian distribution. The signal-plus-noise stimulus was another array of Gaussian random variables to which was added a sine wave target in random phase. The detector decided which stimulus contained the target by computing the power in a frequency band centered on the target frequency and selecting the stimulus with the greatest power. The Gaussian noise consisted of two components, one fixed and the other variable. The fixed component represented the detector’s internal noise and was held constant. The variable component represented the external noise and was varied across simulations to compute the detector’s calculation efficiency. The detector’s threshold was computed by measuring percentage correct for 400 simulated trials at each of 12 simulated target amplitudes, fitting a Weibull function to the data, and calculating the 81% correct point. Thresholds were measured for five levels of external noise, and Eq. (6) was used to estimate the detector’s calculation efficiency and internal noise. As expected, the calculation efficiency of the simulated ideal detector (filter bandwidth = 1 c/image) was 1. Next, calculation efficiency was computed for a detector with a filter bandwidth (W) that ranged from 1 to 30 c/image: Across this range, efficiency equalled 1/W0.4. Finally, spatial-frequency uncertainty was simulated by forcing the detector to compute power at three bands of spatial frequencies centered at 10, 30, and 90 c/image. The bandwidth of each channel was varied with the restriction that the three frequency bands never overlapped. The power from each band was combined in two ways. In the maximum-response simulations, the detector chose the stimulus that yielded the largest number. In the summation-of-response simulations, the three numbers were added and the detector chose the stimulus that yielded the largest sum.
  37. N. Graham, Visual Pattern Analyzers (Oxford University, New York, 1989).
  38. E. T. Davis, P. Kramer, N. Graham, “Uncertainty about spatial-frequency, spatial position, or contrast of visual patterns,” Percept. Psychophys. 33, 20–28 (1983). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. P. Kramer, N. Graham, D. Yager, “Simultaneous measurement of spatial-frequency summation and uncertainty effects,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 2, 1533–1542 (1985). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. It is necessary to convert from units of space average luminance to retinal illuminance to compare our results with previous measurements. We did not measure pupil diameters of the observers in our experiments, and so we estimated illuminance in the following way. Subsequent to the main experiments, pupil diameters were measured on five young observers. Average pupil diameter was 5.5 mm for the high-luminance display. We were unable to measure pupil size reliably in the low-luminance condition, but previous studies41,42 have found that pupil diameter increases by 40–50% over this luminance range. On the basis of these measurements it is reasonable to assume that decreasing luminance from 80 to 1.6 cd m-2 reduced retinal illuminance from approximately 1900 to 80 td. Kelly43 reported that contrast sensitivity at 8 c/deg drops by approximately 0.4 log unit, whereas sensitivity for 1 and 3 c/deg remains nearly constant, over this range of retinal illuminances. These values do not differ appreciably from those found in the current study at 9, 3, and 1 c/deg.
  41. Y. Le Grand, Light, Colour and Vision (Chapman & Hall, London, 1957).
  42. B. Winn, D. Whitaker, D. B. Elliott, N. J. Phillips, “Factors affecting light-adapted pupil size in normal human subjects,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. 35, 1132–1137 (1994).
  43. D. H. Kelly, “Visual contrast sensitivity,” Opt. Acta 24, 107–129 (1977). [CrossRef]
  44. J. Rovamo, H. Hukkonen, K. Tiippana, R. Nasanen, “Effects of luminance and exposure time on contrast sensitivity in spatial noise [letter],” Vision Res. 33, 1123–1129 (1993). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. R. A. Weale, The Aging Eye (Lewis, London, 1963).
  46. J. E. E. Keunen, D. van Norren, G. J. van Meel, “Density of foveal cone pigments at older age,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. 28, 985–991 (1987).
  47. P. E. Kilbride, L. P. Hutman, M. Fishman, J. S. Reed, “Foveal cone pigment density difference in the aging human eye,” Vision Res. 26, 321–325 (1986). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. J. S. Werner, V. G. Steele, “Sensitivity of human foveal color mechanisms throughout the life span,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 5, 2122–2130 (1988). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. B. E. Schefrin, K. Shinomori, J. S. Werner, “Contributions of neural pathways to age-related losses in chromatic discrimination,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 12, 1233–1241 (1995). [CrossRef]
  50. B. E. Schefrin, J. S. Werner, M. Plach, N. Utlaut, “Sites of age-related sensitivity loss in a short-wave cone pathway,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 9, 355–363 (1992). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. V. Porciatti, D. C. Burr, M. C. Morrone, A. Fircentini, “The effects of ageing on the pattern electroretinogram and visual evoked potential in humans,” Vision Res. 32, 1199–1209 (1992). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. W. A. Wickelgren, “Unidimensional strength theory and component analysis of noise in absolute and comparative judgments,” J. Math. Psychol. 5, 102–122 (1968). [CrossRef]
  53. D. J. Tolhurst, J. A. Movshon, I. D. Thompson, “The dependence of response amplitude and variance of cat visualcortical neurones on stimulus contrast,” Exp. Brain Res. 41, 414–419 (1981).
  54. D. J. Tolhurst, J. A. Movshon, A. F. Dean, “The statistical reliability of signals in single neurons in cat and monkey visual cortex,” Vision Res. 23, 775–785 (1983). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. D. M. Green, “Consistency of auditory detection judgments,” Psychol. Rev. 71, 392–407 (1964). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. M. F. Spiegel, D. M. Green, “Two procedures for estimating internal noise,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 70, 69–73 (1981). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. B. E. Schefrin, M. L. Bieber, J. S. Werner, “The area of complete spatial summation enlarges with age,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. Suppl. 38, S58 (1997).
  58. C. Owsley, R. Sekuler, “Spatial summation, contrast threshold, and aging,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. 22, 130–133 (1982).
  59. L. Ozin, P. J. Bennett, “The effects of aging on spatial frequency tuning,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. Suppl. 37, S1069 (1996).
  60. C. T. Scialfa, D. W. Kline, B. J. Lyman, “Age differences in target identification as a function of retinal loca-tion and noise level: examination of the useful field of view,” Psychol. Aging 2, 14–19 (1987). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. R. Sekuler, K. Ball, “Visual localization: age and practice,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 3, 864–867 (1986). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. P. Rabbit, “An age-decrement in the ability to ignore irrelevant information,” J. Gerontol. 20, 233–237 (1965). [CrossRef]
  63. D. J. Madden, “Aging and distraction by highly familiar stimuli during visual search,” Dev. Psychol. 19, 499–507 (1983). [CrossRef]
  64. P. E. Comalli, S. Wapner, H. Werner, “Interference effects of a Stroop color-word test in children, adulthood, and aging,” J. Gen. Psychol. 100, 47–53 (1962). [CrossRef]
  65. S. P. Tipper, “Less attentional selectivity as a result of declining inhibition in older observers,” Bull. Psychonomic Soc. 29, 45–47 (1991). [CrossRef]
  66. U. Lindenberger, P. B. Baltes, “Sensory functioning and intelligence in old age: a strong connection,” Psychol. Aging 2, 339–355 (1994). [CrossRef]
  67. T. A. Salthouse, H. E. Hancock, E. J. Meinz, D. Z. Hambrick, “Interrelations of age, visual acuity, and cognitive functioning,” J. Gerontol. B 51B, P317–P330 (1996). [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