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. 20, Iss. 1 — Jan. 1, 2003
  • pp: 11–17

Foveal contrast thresholds exhibit spatial-frequency- and polarity-specific contour interactions

Oliver Ehrt, Robert F. Hess, Cristyn B. Williams, and Khurram Sher  »View Author Affiliations


JOSA A, Vol. 20, Issue 1, pp. 11-17 (2003)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.20.000011


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (556 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

Traditionally, contour interaction has been investigated at the visual acuity limit using a Landolt C and flanking bars, performance being quantified in terms of a percent correct measure. More recently, it has been shown that the properties of the contour interaction are different when larger stimuli are used: Contour interaction is not polarity specific, and spatial frequency tuning for an unflanked C is broader. Here we quantify contour interaction for stimuli 5× larger than the resolution limit in terms of contrast thresholds. We show that polarity of bars has little effect on unfiltered stimuli but does show very different effects on the spatial-frequency-tuning curves for discrimination of the Landolt C. This explains the polarity dependence of crowding at the visual acuity limit and its independence for larger unfiltered targets. Thus the underlying filtering function is composed of more than one mechanism, affected differently depending on the relative polarity of the test and flank contours.

© 2003 Optical Society of America

OCIS Codes
(330.1800) Vision, color, and visual optics : Vision - contrast sensitivity
(330.5510) Vision, color, and visual optics : Psychophysics
(330.6110) Vision, color, and visual optics : Spatial filtering

Citation
Oliver Ehrt, Robert F. Hess, Cristyn B. Williams, and Khurram Sher, "Foveal contrast thresholds exhibit spatial-frequency- and polarity-specific contour interactions," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 20, 11-17 (2003)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?URI=josaa-20-1-11


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset

References

  1. M. C. Flom, F. W. Weymouth, and D. Kahneman, “Visual resolution and contour interaction,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 53, 1026–1032 (1963).
  2. M. C. Flom, G. Heath, and E. Takahashi, “Crowding interaction and visual resolution: contralateral effects,” Science 142, 979–980 (1963).
  3. M. C. Flom, “Contour interaction and the crowding effect,” Probl. Optom. 3, 237–257 (1991).
  4. H. Strasburger, L. O. Harvey, and I. Rentschler, “Contrast thresholds for the identification of numeric charters in direct and eccentric view,” Percept. Psychophys. 49, 495–508 (1991).
  5. F. L. Kooi, A. Toet, S. P. Tripathy, and D. M. Levi, “The effect of similarity and duration on spatial interactions in peripheral vision,” Spatial Vision 8, 255–279 (1994).
  6. S. J. Leat, W. Li, and K. Epp, “Crowding in central and eccentric vision: the effects of contour interaction and attention,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. 40, 504–12 (1999).
  7. A. J. Simmers, L. S. Gray, P. V. McGraw, and B. Winn, “Contour interaction for high and low contrast optotypes in normal and amblyopic observers,” Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 19, 253–260 (1999).
  8. S. T. L. Chung, D. M. Levi, and G. E. Legge, “Spatial frequency and contrast properties of crowding,” Vision Res. 41, 1833–1850 (2001).
  9. R. F. Hess, S. C. Dakin, and N. Kapoor, “Foveal contour interaction: physics or physiology?” Vision Res. 20, 365–370 (2000).
  10. L. Liu, “Can the amplitude difference spectrum peak frequency explain the foveal crowding effect?” Vision Res. 41, 3693–3704 (2001).
  11. R. F. Hess, C. B. Williams, and A. Chaudhry, “Contour interaction for an easily resolvable stimulus,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 18, 2414–2418 (2001).
  12. S. T. L. Chung, G. E. Legge, and B. S. Tjan, “Spatial frequency characteristics of letter identification in central and peripheral vision,” Vision Res. 42, 1571–1581 (2002).
  13. D. G. Pelli and L. Zhang, “Accurate control of contrast on microcomputer displays,” Vision Res. 31, 1337–1347 (1991).
  14. F. A. Wichmann and N. J. Hill, “The psychometric function: I. Fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit,” Percept. Psychophys. 63, 1293–1313 (2001).
  15. F. A. Wichmann and N. J. Hill, “The psychometric function: II. Bootstrap-based confidence intervals and sampling,” Percept. Psychophys. 63, 1314–1329 (2001).
  16. V. M. Bondarko and M. V. Danilova, “What spatial frequencies do we use to detect the orientation of a Landolt C?” Vision Res. 37, 2153–2156 (1997).
  17. A. P. Ginsburg, “Specifying relevant spatial information for image evaluation and display design: an explanation of how we see certain objects,” Proc. Soc. Inf. Disp. 21, 219–227 (1980).
  18. D. H. Parish and G. Sperling, “Object spatial frequencies, retinal spatial frequencies, noise, and the efficiency of letter discrimination,” Vision Res. 31, 1399–1415 (1991).
  19. K. R. Alexander, W. Xie, and D. J. Derlacki, “Spatial-frequency characteristics of letter identification,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 11, 2375–2382 (1994).
  20. J. Solomon and D. G. Pelli, “The visual filter mediating letter identification,” Nature 369, 395–397 (1994).

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