Literature DB >> 16441194

Size matters, but not for everyone: individual differences for contrast discrimination.

Tim S Meese1, Robert F Hess, Cristyn B Williams.   

Abstract

It is very well known that contrast detection thresholds improve with the size of a grating-type stimulus, but it is thought that the benefit of size is abolished for contrast discriminations well above threshold [e.g., Legge, G. E., & Foley, J. M. (1980)]. Here we challenge the generality of this view. We performed contrast detection and contrast discrimination for circular patches of sine wave grating as a function of stimulus size. We confirm that sensitivity improves with approximately the fourth-root of stimulus area at detection threshold (a log-log slope of -0.25) but find individual differences (IDs) for the suprathreshold discrimination task. For several observers, performance was largely unaffected by area, but for others performance first improved (by as much as a log-log slope of -0.5) and then reached a plateau. We replicated these different results several times on the same observers. All of these results were described in the context of a recent gain control model of area summation [Meese, T. S. (2004)], extended to accommodate the multiple stimulus sizes used here. In this model, (i) excitation increased with the fourth-root of stimulus area for all observers, and (ii) IDs in the discrimination data were described by IDs in the relation between suppression and area. This means that empirical summation in the contrast discrimination task can be attributed to growth in suppression with stimulus size that does not keep pace with the growth in excitation.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16441194     DOI: 10.1167/5.11.2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vis        ISSN: 1534-7362            Impact factor:   2.240


  11 in total

1.  Detection of Gabor patterns of different sizes, shapes, phases and eccentricities.

Authors:  John M Foley; Srinivasa Varadharajan; Chin C Koh; Mylene C Q Farias
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2006-10-31       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 2.  Lateral effects in pattern vision.

Authors:  John M Foley
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  Neuronal convergence in early contrast vision: binocular summation is followed by response nonlinearity and area summation.

Authors:  Tim S Meese; Robert J Summers
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2009-04-06       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Attentional control of sensory tuning in human visual perception.

Authors:  Aspasia E Paltoglou; Peter Neri
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2011-11-30       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Paradoxical psychometric functions ("swan functions") are explained by dilution masking in four stimulus dimensions.

Authors:  Daniel H Baker; Tim S Meese; Mark A Georgeson
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2013-01-02

6.  A common rule for integration and suppression of luminance contrast across eyes, space, time, and pattern.

Authors:  Tim S Meese; Daniel H Baker
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2013-01-02

7.  Visual detection under uncertainty operates via an early static, not late dynamic, non-linearity.

Authors:  Peter Neri
Journal:  Front Comput Neurosci       Date:  2010-11-30       Impact factor: 2.380

8.  Global properties of natural scenes shape local properties of human edge detectors.

Authors:  Peter Neri
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2011-08-05

9.  Area summation in human vision at and above detection threshold.

Authors:  Tim S Meese; Robert J Summers
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2007-11-22       Impact factor: 5.349

10.  You Don't See What I See: Individual Differences in the Perception of Meaning from Visual Stimuli.

Authors:  Timea R Partos; Simon J Cropper; David Rawlings
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.