Literature DB >> 16039689

Why is second-order vision less efficient than first-order vision?

Velitchko Manahilov1, William A Simpson, Julie Calvert.   

Abstract

Research has shown that the sensitivity to second-order modulations of carrier contrast is lower than that to first-order luminance modulations stimuli. We sought to compare the efficiency of processing first- and second-order information. Employing a phase-discrimination paradigm we found that when humans were given sufficient a priori information of signal parameters they detected both luminance and contrast modulations of 0.6 and 2c/deg by a phase-sensitive algorithm. The overall detection efficiency for second-order patterns, however, was lower that that for first-order stimuli. To study the factors which limit the efficiency of first- and second-order vision, we measured detection performance for luminance and contrast modulations of 0.6 and 2c/deg embedded in Gaussian noise. The results showed that the detection of second-order patterns had lower sampling efficiency and higher additive internal noise as compared to the detection of first-order stimuli. Classification images for detecting contrast modulations of 2c/deg resembled the side-band component of the contrast modulations which suggests that human observers may detect contrast modulations of a sinusoidal carrier using first-order luminance channels. The lower sensitivity of the mechanism detecting second-order patterns might be due to higher levels of additive internal noise and lower sampling efficiency than those of the mechanism analysing first-order patterns.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16039689     DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2005.06.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vision Res        ISSN: 0042-6989            Impact factor:   1.886


  3 in total

1.  Sensitivity to first- and second-order drifting gratings in 3-month-old infants.

Authors:  Vickie Armstrong; Daphne Maurer; Dave Ellemberg; Terri L Lewis
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2011-08-08

2.  Orientation-cue invariant population responses to contrast-modulated and phase-reversed contour stimuli in macaque V1 and V2.

Authors:  Xu An; Hongliang Gong; Jiapeng Yin; Xiaochun Wang; Yanxia Pan; Xian Zhang; Yiliang Lu; Yupeng Yang; Zoltan Toth; Ingo Schiessl; Niall McLoughlin; Wei Wang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-09-04       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Different luminance- and texture-defined contrast sensitivity profiles for school-aged children.

Authors:  Daphné Silvestre; Jacalyn Guy; Julie Hanck; Kim Cornish; Armando Bertone
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-08-03       Impact factor: 4.379

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.