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. 19, Iss. 12 — Dec. 1, 2002
  • pp: 2349–2362

Preneural limitations on letter identification in central and peripheral vision

Paul J. Beckmann and Gordon E. Legge  »View Author Affiliations


JOSA A, Vol. 19, Issue 12, pp. 2349-2362 (2002)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.19.002349


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (374 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

We created a sequential ideal-observer model that could address the question, How much of letter identification performance and its change with eccentricity can be accounted for by preneural factors? The ideal-observer model takes into account preneural factors including the stimulus rendering properties of a CRT display, the optical imaging quality of the eye, and photon capture and sampling characteristics of the cones. We validated the formulation of the model by comparing its performance on simple psychophysical tasks with that of previous sequential ideal-observer models. The model was used to study properties of the image rendering of letters. For example, the model’s identification of high-resolution letters (i.e., many pixels per letter), but not low-resolution letters, is largely immune to changes in pixel width. We compared human and ideal-observer letter-identification acuity for the lowercase alphabet at 0°, 5°, and 20° retinal eccentricity. Acuity of the ideal observer for high-contrast letters is approximately seven times better than that of the human observers at 0°. Acuity decreased with eccentricity more rapidly for human observers than for the ideal observer such that the thresholds differed by a factor of 50 at 20°. A decrease in stimulus duration from 100 to 33 ms resulted in no decrease in relative threshold size between the human and ideal observers at all eccentricities, indicating that humans effectively integrate stimulus information over this range. Decreasing contrast from 75% to 25%, however, reduced the difference in acuities twofold at all eccentricities between humans and the ideal-observer model, consistent with the presence a compressive nonlinearity only in the human observers. The gap between human and ideal acuity in central vision means that there are substantial limitations in human letter recognition beyond the stage of photoreceptor sampling. The increasing performance gap between human and ideal-observer performance with eccentricity implicates an increasing role of neural limitations with eccentricity in limiting human letter identification.

© 2002 Optical Society of America

OCIS Codes
(330.0330) Vision, color, and visual optics : Vision, color, and visual optics
(330.1070) Vision, color, and visual optics : Vision - acuity
(330.4060) Vision, color, and visual optics : Vision modeling

Citation
Paul J. Beckmann and Gordon E. Legge, "Preneural limitations on letter identification in central and peripheral vision," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 19, 2349-2362 (2002)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?URI=josaa-19-12-2349


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset

References

  1. P. Artal, I. Iglesias, N. López-Gil, and D. G. Green, “Double-pass measurements of the retinal-image quality with unequal entrance and exit pupil sizes and the reversibility of the eye’s optical system,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 12, 2358–2366 (1995).
  2. F. W. Campbell and R. W. Gubisch, “Optical quality of the human eye,” J. Physiol. (London) 186, 558–578 (1966).
  3. A. Guirao and P. Artal, “Off-axis monochromatic aberrations estimated from double pass measurements in the human eye,” Vision Res. 39, 207–217 (1999).
  4. R. Navarro, P. Artal, and D. R. Williams, “Modulation transfer function of the human eye as a function of retinal eccentricity,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 10, 201–212 (1993).
  5. L. N. Thibos, A. Bradley, D. L. Still, X. Zhang, and P. A. Howarth, “Theory and measurement of ocular chromatic aberration,” Vision Res. 30, 33–49 (1990).
  6. C. A. Curcio, K. R. Sloan, R. E. Kalina, and A. E. Hendrickson, “Human photoreceptor topography,” J. Comp. Neurol. 292, 497–523 (1990).
  7. C. A. Curcio, K. R. Sloan, and D. Meyers, “Computer methods for sampling, reconstruction, display and analysis of retinal whole mounts,” Vision Res. 29, 529–540 (1989).
  8. B. Chen, W. Makous, and D. R. Williams, “Serial spatial filters in vision,” Vision Res. 33, 413–427 (1993).
  9. C. A. Curcio, K. A. Allen, K. R. Sloan, C. L. Lerea, J. B. Hurley, I. B. Klock, and A. H. Milam, “Distribution and morphology of human cone photoreceptors stained with antiblue opsin,” J. Comp. Neurol. 312, 610–624 (1991).
  10. D. H. Brainard, A. Roorda, Y. Yamauchi, J. B. Calderone, A. Metha, M. Neitz, J. Neitz, D. R. Williams, and G. H. Jacobs, “Function consequences of the relative numbers of L and M cones,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 17, 607–614 (2000).
  11. H. Wässle, “Retinal ganglion cell density and cortical magnification factor in the primate,” Vision Res. 30, 1897–1911 (1990).
  12. S. T. L. Chung, J. S. Mansfield, and G. E. Legge, “Psychophysics of reading XVIII. The effect of print size on reading speed in normal peripheral vision,” Vision Res. 38, 2949–2962 (1998).
  13. G. E. Legge, J. S. Mansfield, and S. T. L. Chung, “Psychophysics of reading XX. Linking letter recognition to reading speed in central and peripheral vision,” Vision Res. 41, 725–743 (2001).
  14. S. M. Anstis, “A chart demonstrating variations in acuity with retinal position,” Vision Res. 14, 589–592 (1974).
  15. E. Ludvigh, “Extrafoveal visual acuity as measured with Snellen test-letters,” Am. J. Ophthalmol. 24, 303–310 (1941).
  16. A. M. Jacobs, T. A. Nazir, and O. Heller, “Perception of lowercase letters in peripheral vision: a discrimination matrix based on saccade latencies,” Percept. Psychophys. 46, 95–102 (1989).
  17. M. Millodot, C. A. Johnson, A. Lamont, and H. W. Leibowitz, “Effect of dioptrics on peripheral visual acuity,” Vision Res. 15, 1357–1362 (1975).
  18. J. M. White and D. S. Loshin, “Grating acuity overestimates Snellen acuity in patients with age-related maculopathy,” Optom. Vision Sci. 66, 751–755 (1989).
  19. H. Bouma, “Visual recognition of isolated lower-case letters,” Vision Res. 11, 459–474 (1971).
  20. B. E. Roethlein, “The relative legibility of different faces of printing types,” Am. J. Psychol. 23, 1–36 (1912).
  21. E. C. Sanford, “The relative legibility of the small letters,” Am. J. Psychol. 1, 402–435 (1888).
  22. K. R. Alexander, W. Xie, and D. J. Derlacki, “Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity for individual Sloan letters,” Vision Res. 37, 813–819 (1997).
  23. R. S. Anderson and L. N. Thibos, “Relationship between acuity for gratings and for tumbling-E letters in peripheral vision,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 16, 2321–2333 (1999).
  24. W. S. Geisler, “Sequential ideal-observer analysis of visual discriminations,” Psychol. Rev. 96, 267–314 (1989).
  25. W. S. Geisler, “Physical limits of acuity and hyperacuity,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 1, 775–782 (1984).
  26. W. S. Geisler and K. D. Davila, “Ideal discriminators in spatial vision: two-point stimuli,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 2, 1483–1497 (1985).
  27. W. S. Geisler and D. B. Hamilton, “Sampling-theory analysis of spatial vision,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 3, 62–70 (1986).
  28. M. S. Banks, A. B. Sekuler, and S. J. Anderson, “Peripheral spatial vision: limits imposed by optics, photoreceptors, and receptor pooling,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 8, 1775–1787 (1991).
  29. G. E. Legge, S. J. Ahn, T. S. Klitz, and A. Luebker, “Psychophysics of reading XVI. The visual span in normal and low vision,” Vision Res. 37, 1999–2010 (1997).
  30. H. E. Blanchard, A. Pollatsek, and K. Rayner, “The acquisition of parafoveal word information in reading,” Percept. Psychophys. 46, 85–94 (1989).
  31. G. E. Legge, G. S. Rubin, D. G. Pelli, and M. M. Schleske, “Psychophysics of reading II. Low vision,” Vision Res. 25, 253–266 (1985).
  32. K. Rayner and J. H. Bertera, “Reading without a fovea,” Science 206, 468–469 (1979).
  33. The photoreceptors were positioned on a regular, triangular close-packed grid. Photons were captured by the photoreceptor if they fell anywhere in their physiologic aperture, which was taken to be a circle with a diameter equal to the cone spacing. The retinal image was sampled by this mosaic by multiplying it by the Fourier transform of a single cone, inverse transforming the result, and sampling the image at the known receptor sites.
  34. Geisler derived a closed-form expression for the likelihood computed from the mean absorption counts for both of the alternatives.
  35. Their study controlled the optical image quality of the eye across the visual field by using an external 1.5-mm pupil. They used such a pupil in the human experiments and represented the imaging in the model as diffraction limited.
  36. G. Westheimer, “The eye as an optical instrument,” in Handbook of Perception and Human Performance. Vol. I. Sensory Processes and Perception, K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, and J. P. Thomas, eds. (Wiley, New York, 1986), pp. 4–1–4–20.
  37. The photoreceptors were positioned on a regular triangular mosaic at the densities found by Curcio and her colleagues, 6 and the aperture of the photoreceptor was taken as either the diameter of the inner segment or the outer segment of the receptor, with a photon taken as captured if it fell anywhere within the aperture. The isomerization rate was taken as eccentricity dependent.
  38. The location of each cone is known exactly by the decision stage.
  39. D. G. Pelli, “The quantum efficiency of vision,” in Vision: Coding and Efficiency, C. Blakemore, ed. (Cambridge U. Press, 1990), pp. 3–24.
  40. J. A. Solomon and D. G. Pelli, “The visual filter mediating letter identification,” Nature 369, 395–397 (1994).
  41. Two parameters that affect the rendering of the letter on the display will be considered here: pixel pitch defined as the physical separation between adjacent pixels, and pixel width defined as the standard deviation of the Gaussian pixel profile. The pixels are arranged on a rectangular grid.
  42. W. Cowan, “Displays for vision research,” in Handbook of Optics. Vol. I: Fundamentals, Techniques, and Design, M. Bass, ed. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1995), pp. 27.1–27.44.
  43. J. Santamaría, P. Artal, and J. Bescos, “Determination of the point-spread function of human eyes using a hybrid optical-digital method,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 4, 1109–1114 (1987).
  44. The PSF includes the effects of defocus, chromatic aberration, diffraction, and scatter. For our study the reported modulation transfer function values of Navarro et al. 4 were used to estimate the PSF. The horizontal and vertical cross sections of the PSF were each modeled as the sum of two Gaussians. Fitting the PSF with Gaussians provided a straightforward computation of the retinal image of a 2D Gaussian pixel. The area under the PSF was normalized to 1.0 while the relative contributions of these two Gaussians and their standard deviations were varied with eccentricity. In the simulations reported here, astigmatism was not included for the following reasons. Central astigmatism varies within the human population and between the eyes of individuals.45 In addition, the effects of peripheral astigmatism are quite small within 20° of central vision.46 The relationship between central and peripheral astigmatism initially appeared to vary in complex ways that differ significantly between individuals.4 Artal and his colleagues, however, recently developed a technique that allows investigation of odd-order aberrations, including peripheral astigmatism.1 3 They found that peripheral astigmatism and coma were most consistent between subjects but that peripheral defocus varied greatly between subjects. The position of Williams47 and Guirao and Artal3 is that the circle of least confusion remains unchanged at least out to 20°. This compromise condition of focus is the one included here.
  45. A. M. McKendrick and N. A. Brennan, “Distribution of astigmatism in the adult population,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 13, 206–214 (1996).
  46. W. Lotmar and T. Lotmar, “Peripheral astigmatism in the human eye: experimental data and theoretical model predictions,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 64, 510–513 (1974).
  47. D. R. Williams, P. Artal, R. Navarro, M. J. McMahon, and D. H. Brainard, “Off-axis optical quality and retinal sampling in the human eye,” Vision Res. 36, 1103–1114 (1996).
  48. The model uses the field scale values of 282, 277, and 262 μm/deg at 0°, 5°, and 20° eccentricity to determine the size of the stimulus image on the retina. These field scales have been calculated by using the Drasdo49 wide-field schematic eye following Curcio.50
  49. N. Drasdo and C. W. Fowler, “Non-linear projection of the retinal image in a wide-angle schematic eye,” Br. J. Ophthamol. 58, 709–714 (1974).
  50. C. A. Curcio and K. R. Sloan, “Packing geometry of human cone photoreceptors: variation with eccentricity and evidence for local anisotropy,” Visual Neurosci. 9, 169–180 (1992).
  51. W. N. Charman, “Optics of the human eye,” in Vision and Visual Dysfunction, Vol. 1, Visual Optics and Instrumentation, W. N. Charman, ed. (Macmillan, London, 1991), pp. 1–26.
  52. L. N. Thibos, “Calculation of the influence of lateral chromatic aberration on image quality across the visual field,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 4, 1673–1680 (1987).
  53. P. A. Howarth and A. Bradley, “The longitudinal chromatic aberration of the human eye, and its correction,” Vision Res. 26, 361–366 (1986).
  54. C. A. Curcio, University of Alabama at Birmingham; 700 South 18th Street, Room H20; Birmingham, Alabama 35294-0009 (personal communication, October 6, 1993).
  55. S. Marcos, R. Navarro, and P. Artal, “Coherent imaging of the cone mosaic in the living human eye,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 13, 897–905 (1996).
  56. C. M. Cicerone and J. L. Nerger, “The relative numbers of long-wavelength-sensitive to middle-wavelength-sensitive cones in the human fovea centralis,” Vision Res. 29, 115–128 (1989).
  57. P. D. Gowdy, S. Otake, and C. M. Cicerone, “The spatial arrangement of L and M cones in the living human eye,” Vision Res. Suppl. 37, S448 (1996).
  58. J. L. Nerger and C. M. Cicerone, “The ratio of L cones to M cones in the human parafoveal retina,” Vision Res. 32, 879–888 (1992).
  59. C. M. Cicerone and S. Otake, “Color-opponent sites: individual variability and changes with retinal eccentricity,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. Suppl. 38, S454 (1997).
  60. A. Roorda and D. R. Williams, “The arrangement of the three cone classes in the living human eye,” Nature 397, 520–522 (1999).
  61. S. Otake, P. D. Gowdy, and C. M. Cicerone, “The spatial arrangement of L and M cones in the peripheral human retina,” Vision Res. 40, 677–693 (2000).
  62. Each cone class is assumed to have a fixed probability of absorption for all quanta entering its aperture, based on the wavelength of the light and the cone class. Some evidence of individual differences in the photopigment density, at least near the fovea, 63 exists. This difference, however, is not incorporated into the model. Instead, a peak absorption probability of 50% is assumed in the calculations.
  63. M. W. Levine, R. P. Zimmerman, and V. Carrion-Carire, “Variability in responses of retinal ganglion cells,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 5, 593–597 (1988).
  64. G. Wyszecki and W. S. Stiles, Color Science, 2nd ed. (Wiley, New York, 1982).
  65. Psychophysical studies of cone vision66 have shown that quantum noise follows Poisson statistics in the dark-adapted human eye.
  66. K. Donner, “Noise and the absolute thresholds of cone and rod vision,” Vision Res. 32, 853–866 (1992).
  67. J. T. Tou and R. C. Gonzalez, Pattern Recognition Principles (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1974).
  68. M. S. Banks, W. S. Geisler, and P. J. Bennett, “The physical limits of grating visibility,” Vision Res. 27, 1915–1924 (1987).
  69. The Gabor patch was rendered as a 101×101 pixel bitmap representing a cosinusoidal horizontal grating modulated by a 2D circular half-cosine envelope. The half-cosine spanned 7.5 periods of the underlying grating. Each period of the grating was rendered across 12.5 pixels. The spatial frequency of the grating was changed by changing the viewing distance and keeping the rendering of the grating the same. The amplitude of the grating modulation of the background was changed for each distance until the model performed at threshold level.
  70. The cutoff due to diffraction is 110 cpd for a 4-mm pupil. It is reasonable to expect the 4-mm pupil diameter represented in the current model to exhibit a cutoff higher than that of the 1.5-mm pupil used by Banks but lower than the theoretical diffraction limit due to aberrations.
  71. L. L. Sloan, “The photopic acuity-luminance function with special reference to parafoveal vision,” Vision Res. 8, 901–911 (1968).
  72. F. L. van Nes and J. C. Jacobs, “The effect of contrast on letter and word recognition,” IPO Ann. Prog. Rep. 16, 72–80 (1981).
  73. K. R. Alexander, D. J. Derlacki, G. A. Fishman, and J. P. Szlyk, “Temporal properties of letter identification in retinitis pigmentosa,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 10, 1631–1636 (1993).
  74. W. Seiple, K. Holopigian, Y. Shnayder, and J. P. Szlyk, “Duration thresholds for target detection and identification in the peripheral visual field,” Optom. Vision Sci. 78, 169–176 (2001).
  75. Postscript™ assigns an origin within its definition for each letter. Within each x-height size, the origin of the letters was in the same location, trial to trial. Alternative rules for aligning stimulus letters on the screen could influence performance of the ideal observer; for instance, in an extreme case in which the 26 letters were presented at distinct, nonoverlapping regions of the screen, the ideal-observer’s performance would be significantly improved. The method used here, however, resulted in substantial overlap between the letter images.
  76. K. R. Aggarwala, S. Nowbotsing, and P. B. Kruger, “Accom-modation to monochromatic and white-light targets,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. 36, 2695–2705 (1995).
  77. P. B. Kruger and J. Pola, “Stimuli for accommodation: blur, chromatic aberration and size,” Vision Res. 26, 957–971 (1986).
  78. D. H. Foster and W. F. Bischof, “Thresholds from psychometric functions: Superiority of bootstrap to incremental and probit variance estimators,” Psychol. Bull. 109, 152–159 (1991).
  79. L. T. Maloney, “Confidence intervals for the parameters of psychometric functions,” Percept. Psychophys. 47, 127–134 (1990).
  80. W. H. Press, B. P. Lannery, S. A. Teukolsky, and W. T. Vetterling, Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing (Cambridge U. Press, New York, 1988).
  81. This presentation time was chosen because it was the shortest reliable presentation time possible with the software and hardware used in the experiment.
  82. R. M. Steinman, G. M. Haddad, A. A. Skavenski, and D. Wyman, “Miniature eye movements,” Science 181, 810–819 (1973).
  83. B. S. Tjan, “Ideal observer analysis of object recognition,” Ph.D. dissertation (University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn., 1996).
  84. B. S. Tjan, W. L. Braje, G. E. Legge, and D. Kersten, “Human efficiency for recognizing 3-D objects in luminance noise,” Vision Res. 35, 3053–3069 (1995).
  85. Tjan measured percent-correct identification performance as a function of SNR for letters of fixed size. Our work uses letters of fixed contrast and letters of varying size. It is possible, however, to build a bridge between these two approaches by noting that “signal” for the ideal observer used by Tjan is proportional to the square of letter x height for fixed contrast. Thus a factor of k increase in SNR at threshold performance in Tjan’s analysis corresponds to a k0.5 increase in letter size at fixed contrast and the same threshold level of performance. We used this method to calculate our estimates.
  86. G. E. Legge and J. M. Foley, “Contrast masking in human vision,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 70, 1458–1471 (1980).
  87. C. A. Curcio and K. A. Allen, “Topography of ganglion cells in human retina,” J. Comp. Neurol. 300, 5–25 (1990).
  88. P. J. Beckmann, “Preneural limitations to identification performance in central and peripheral vision,” Ph.D. dissertation (University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn., 1998).

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