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

  • Editor: Franco Gori
  • Vol. 30, Iss. 3 — Mar. 1, 2013
  • pp: 300–315

Probability summation—a critique

Donald Laming  »View Author Affiliations


JOSA A, Vol. 30, Issue 3, pp. 300-315 (2013)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.30.000300


View Full Text Article

Enhanced HTML    Acrobat PDF (969 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

This Discussion Paper seeks to kill off probability summation, specifically the high-threshold assumption, as an explanatory idea in visual science. In combination with a Weibull function of a parameter of about 4, probability summation can accommodate, to within the limits of experimental error, the shape of the detectability function for contrast, the reduction in threshold that results from the combination of widely separated grating components, summation with respect to duration at threshold, and some instances, but not all, of spatial summation. But it has repeated difficulty with stimuli below threshold, because it denies the availability of input from such stimuli. All the phenomena listed above, and many more, can be accommodated equally accurately by signal-detection theory combined with an accelerated nonlinear transform of small, near-threshold, contrasts. This is illustrated with a transform that is the fourth power for the smallest contrasts, but tends to linear above threshold. Moreover, this particular transform can be derived from elementary properties of sensory neurons. Probability summation cannot be regarded as a special case of a more general theory, because it depends essentially on the 19th-century notion of a high fixed threshold. It is simply an obstruction to further progress.

© 2013 Optical Society of America

OCIS Codes
(330.1800) Vision, color, and visual optics : Vision - contrast sensitivity
(330.1880) Vision, color, and visual optics : Detection
(330.4060) Vision, color, and visual optics : Vision modeling
(330.5510) Vision, color, and visual optics : Psychophysics
(330.7310) Vision, color, and visual optics : Vision

ToC Category:
Vision, Color, and Visual Optics

History
Original Manuscript: July 24, 2012
Revised Manuscript: January 3, 2013
Manuscript Accepted: January 4, 2013
Published: February 6, 2013

Virtual Issues
Vol. 8, Iss. 4 Virtual Journal for Biomedical Optics

Citation
Donald Laming, "Probability summation—a critique," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 30, 300-315 (2013)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?URI=josaa-30-3-300


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. B. Leshowitz, H. B. Taub, and D. H. Raab, “Visual detection of signals in the presence of continuous and pulsed backgrounds,” Percept. Psychophys. 4, 207–213 (1968). [CrossRef]
  2. D. Laming, “Fechner’s law: where does the log transform come from?” Seeing Perceiving 23, 155–171 (2010).
  3. D. Koenig and H. Hofer, “The absolute threshold of cone vision,” J. Vis. 11(1):21, 1–24 (2011). [CrossRef]
  4. M. B. Sachs, J. Nachmias, and J. G. Robson, “Spatial-frequency channels in human vision,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 61, 1176–1186 (1971). [CrossRef]
  5. The argument by Sachs et al. ([4]; see their Fig. 4) looks compelling, except that they have assumed the psychometric function for detection of a grating to be normal with respect to contrast. They could alternatively have accommodated their experimental results by supposing the psychometric function to be normal with respect to some power of contrast (as in Fig. 1 here), with detectability depending on the summation of that power over all grating components. There would then have been no need for probability summation, nor for a fixed threshold. The evidence, as at that time, pointing to a power-law transform of small near-threshold stimuli had already been summarized by Nachmias and Kocher [6]. This article shows that the idea that Sachs et al. did not explore, that is, of detectability depending on the summation of power-law transforms over all grating components, provides a more comprehensive account of visual sensitivity.
  6. J. Nachmias and E. C. Kocher, “Visual detection and discrimination of luminance increments,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 60, 382–389 (1970). [CrossRef]
  7. M. H. Pirenne, “Binocular and uniocular threshold of vision,” Nature 152, 698–699 (1943). [CrossRef]
  8. L. Matin, “Binocular summation at the absolute threshold of peripheral vision,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 52, 1276–1286 (1962). [CrossRef]
  9. G. Collier, “Probability of response and interocular association as function of monocular and binocular stimulation,” J. Exp. Psychol. 47, 75–83 (1954). [CrossRef]
  10. R. F. Quick, “A vector-magnitude model of contrast detection,” Kybernetik 16, 65–67 (1974). [CrossRef]
  11. N. v. S. Graham, “Spatial-frequency channels in human vision: detecting edges without edge detectors,” in Visual Coding and Adaptability, C. S. Harris, ed. (Erlbaum, 1980), pp. 215–262.
  12. A. B. Watson, “Probability summation over time,” Vis. Res. 19, 515–522 (1979). [CrossRef]
  13. C. I. Howarth and M. G. Bulmer, “Non-random sequences in visual threshold experiments,” Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 8, 163–171 (1956). [CrossRef]
  14. T. A. Tanner, J. A. Rauk, and R. C. Atkinson, “Signal recognition as influenced by information feedback,” J. Math. Psychol. 7, 259–274 (1970). [CrossRef]
  15. D. Laming, Human Judgment: The Eye of the Beholder(Thomson Learning, 2004), p. 179.
  16. N. Stewart, G. D. A. Brown, and N. Chater, “Absolute identification by relative judgment,” Psychol. Rev. 112, 881–911 (2005). [CrossRef]
  17. G. T. Fechner, Elemente der Psychophysik (Breitkopf and Härtel, 1860).
  18. D. Laming, Mathematical Psychology (Academic, 1973).
  19. J. A. Swets, W. P. Tanner, and T. G. Birdsall, “Decision processes in perception,” Psychol. Rev. 68, 301–340 (1961). [CrossRef]
  20. J. Nachmias, “On the psychometric function for contrast detection,” Vis. Res. 21, 215–223 (1981). [CrossRef]
  21. J. Nachmias and R. M. Steinman, “Brightness and discriminability of light flashes,” Vis. Res. 5, 545–557 (1965). [CrossRef]
  22. W. W. Peterson, T. G. Birdsall, and W. C. Fox, “The theory of signal detectability,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory PGIT-4, 171–212 (1954). This paper is the ultimate source of signal-detection theory. The authors conducted their research at the University of Michigan, where Tanner and Swets learnt about it well in advance of their own publication. Tanner and Swets (1954) list a precursor of the Peterson, Birdsall, and Fox (1954) paper among their references. [CrossRef]
  23. J. Neyman and E. S. Pearson, “On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypotheses,” Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 231, 289–337 (1933). [CrossRef]
  24. D. M. Green and J. A. Swets, Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics (Wiley, 1966).
  25. S. O. Rice, “Mathematical analysis of random noise,” Bell Syst. Tech. J. 23, 282–332 (1944).
  26. S. O. Rice, “Mathematical analysis of random noise,” Bell Syst. Tech. J. 24, 46–156 (1945).
  27. S. Kullback, Information Theory and Statistics (Wiley, 1959).
  28. D. Marr, Vision (Freeman, 1982).
  29. S. M. Pfafflin and M. V. Mathews, “Energy-detection model for monaural auditory detection,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 34, 1842–1853 (1962). [CrossRef]
  30. J. Nachmias and R. V. Sansbury, “Grating contrast: discrimination may be better than detection,” Vis. Res. 14, 1039–1042 (1974). [CrossRef]
  31. G. B. Weatherill and H. Levitt, “Sequential estimation of points on a psychometric function,” Brit. J. Math. Statist. Psychol. 18, 1–9 (1965). [CrossRef]
  32. J. M. Foley and G. E. Legge, “Contrast detection and near-threshold discrimination in human vision,” Vis. Res. 21, 1041–1053 (1981). [CrossRef]
  33. A. B. Watson and A. J. Ahumada, “A standard model for foveal detection of spatial contrast,” J. Vis. 5(9):6, 1–23 (2005). [CrossRef]
  34. J. J. Kulikowski, “Effective contrast constancy and linearity of contrast sensation,” Vis. Res. 16, 1419–1431 (1976).
  35. D. Laming, Sensory Analysis (Academic, 1986).
  36. C. M. Bird, G. B. Henning, and F. A. Wichmann, “Contrast discrimination with sinusoidal gratings of different spatial frequency,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 19, 1267–1273 (2002). [CrossRef]
  37. G. B. Henning and F. A. Wichmann, “Some observations on the pedestal effect,” J. Vis. 7(1):3, 1–15 (2007). [CrossRef]
  38. H. E. Smithson, G. B. Henning, D. I. A. MacLeod, and A. Stockman, “The effect of notched noise on flicker detection and discrimination,” J. Vis. 9(5):21, 1–18 (2009). [CrossRef]
  39. F. W. Campbell and D. G. Green, “Monocular versus binocular visual acuity,” Nature 208, 191–192 (1965). [CrossRef]
  40. G. E. Legge, “Binocular contrast summation—II. Quadratic summation,” Vis. Res. 24, 385–394 (1984). [CrossRef]
  41. G. E. Legge, “Spatial frequency masking in human vision: binocular interactions,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 69, 838–847 (1979). [CrossRef]
  42. D. Laming, “Spatial frequency channels,” in Vision and Visual Dysfunction, Vol 5: Limits of Visual Perception, J. J. Kulikowski, V. Walsh, and I. J. Murray, eds. (Macmillan, 1991), pp. 97–105.
  43. G. E. Legge, “A power law for contrast discrimination,” Vis. Res. 21, 457–467 (1981). [CrossRef]
  44. G. J. Burton, “Contrast discrimination by the human visual system,” Biol. Cybern. 40, 27–38 (1981). [CrossRef]
  45. F. W. Campbell and J. J. Kulikowski, “Orientational selectivity of the human visual system,” J. Physiol. 187, 437–445 (1966).
  46. J. J. Kulikowski, “Limiting conditions of visual perception,” Prace Inst. Automat. PAN (Warsaw) 77, 1–133 (1969). (English translation)
  47. H. D. Speed and J. Ross, “Spatial frequency tuning of facilitation by masks,” Vis. Res. 32, 1143–1148 (1992). [CrossRef]
  48. J. Yang and W. Makous, “Modeling pedestal experiments with amplitude instead of contrast,” Vis. Res. 35, 1979–1989 (1995). [CrossRef]
  49. H. Lotze, Metaphysik; drei Bücher der Ontologie, Kosmologie und Psychologie (Hirzel, 1879), translated B. Bosanquet (Clarendon, 1884), p. 455.
  50. C. Enroth-Cugell and J. G. Robson, “The contrast sensitivity of retinal ganglion cells of the cat,” J. Physiol. 187, 517–552 (1966).
  51. D. H. Kelly, “Flickering patterns and lateral inhibition,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 59, 1361–1370 (1969). [CrossRef]
  52. D. H. Hubel and T. N. Wiesel, “Functional architecture of macaque monkey visual cortex,” Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 198, 1–59 (1977). [CrossRef]
  53. E. R. Howell and R. F. Hess, “The functional area for summation to threshold for sinusoidal gratings,” Vis. Res. 18, 369–374 (1978). [CrossRef]
  54. Detection of a grating in a dark surround under continuous inspection needs further comment. The only cue to detection of sinusoidal modulation in such a case is the variation in input to individual units as the eye moves laterally with respect to the bars of the grating. Temporal modulations generate a square-law perturbation [27, Fig. 7.4, p. 112], in this case over the face of the grating. Moreover, temporal sensitivity is maintained in the peripheral retina, so that the extreme extent of the grating in Fig. 11 does not matter. Ordinarily, comparison with a matched surround provides the more sensitive cue. However, thresholds for (0.1  c/deg) gratings with and without a surround both reach a lower limit at a grating height of 3.2λ, whereafter they do not noticeably differ. This suggests that the same limit to summation applies to both (as one should expect) and, at that limit, spatio-temporal modulations across the boundary with a matched surround are no more informative than modulations within the grating field.
  55. J. Rovamo, O. Luntinen, and R. Naesaenen, “Modelling the dependence of contrast sensitivity on grating area and spatial frequency,” Vis. Res. 33, 2773–2788 (1993). [CrossRef]
  56. J. Rovamo, J. Mustonen, and R. Naesaenen, “Modelling contrast sensitivity as a function of retinal illuminance and grating area,” Vis. Res. 34, 1301–1314 (1994). [CrossRef]
  57. N. v. S. Graham, Visual Pattern Analyzers (Oxford, 1989).
  58. J. M. Foley, “Human luminance pattern-vision mechanisms: masking experiments require a new model,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 11, 1710–1719 (1994). [CrossRef]
  59. R. L. T. Goris, F. A. Wichmann, and G. B. Henning, “A neurophysiologically plausible population-code model for human contrast discrimination,” J. Vis. 9(7):15, 1–22 (2009). [CrossRef]
  60. L. Itti, C. Koch, and J. Braun, “Revisiting spatial vision: toward a unifying model,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 17, 1899–1917 (2000). [CrossRef]
  61. D. G. Pelli, “Uncertainty explains many aspects of visual contrast detection and discrimination,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 2, 1508–1532 (1985). [CrossRef]
  62. J. M. Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (Macmillan, 1936).

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