Literature DB >> 17078992

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

John M Foley1, Srinivasa Varadharajan, Chin C Koh, Mylene C Q Farias.   

Abstract

Contrast thresholds of vertical Gabor patterns were measured as a function of their eccentricity, size, shape, and phase using a 2AFC method. The patterns were 4 c/deg and they were presented for 90 or 240 ms. Log thresholds increase linearly with eccentricity at a mean rate of 0.47 dB/wavelength. For patterns centered on the fovea, thresholds decrease as the area of the pattern increases over the entire standard deviation range of 12 wavelengths. The TvA functions are concave up on log-log coordinates. For small patterns there is an interaction between shape and size that depends on phase. Threshold contrast energy is a U-shaped function of area with a minimum in the vicinity of 0.4 wavelength indicating detection by small receptive fields. Observers can discriminate among patterns of different sizes when the patterns are at threshold indicating that more than one mechanism is involved. The results are accounted for by a model in which patterns excite an array of slightly elongated receptive fields that are identical except that their sensitivity decreases exponentially with eccentricity. Excitation is raised to a power and then summed linearly across receptive fields to determine the threshold. The results are equally well described by an internal-noise-limited model. The TvA functions are insufficient to separately estimate the noise and the exponent of the power function. However, an experiment that shows that mixing sizes within the trial sequence has no effect on thresholds, suggests that the limiting noise does not increase with the number of mechanisms monitored.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17078992      PMCID: PMC1994823          DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2006.09.005

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


  37 in total

1.  Lateral sensitivity modulation explains the flanker effect in contrast discrimination.

Authors:  C C Chen; C W Tyler
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2001-03-07       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Spatial structure and symmetry of simple-cell receptive fields in macaque primary visual cortex.

Authors:  Dario L Ringach
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Cross- and iso- oriented surrounds modulate the contrast response function: the effect of surround contrast.

Authors:  Cong Yu; Stanley A Klein; Dennis M Levi
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2003-09-25       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Separating the effects of response nonlinearity and internal noise psychophysically.

Authors:  Leonid L Kontsevich; Chien-Chung Chen; Christopher W Tyler
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  Line spread function variation near the fovea.

Authors:  M Hines
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1976       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Matched filters in human vision.

Authors:  G Hauske; W Wolf; U Lupp
Journal:  Biol Cybern       Date:  1976-05-17       Impact factor: 2.086

7.  A vector-magnitude model of contrast detection.

Authors:  R F Quick
Journal:  Kybernetik       Date:  1974

8.  On the existence of neurones in the human visual system selectively sensitive to the orientation and size of retinal images.

Authors:  C Blakemore; F W Campbell
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  1969-07       Impact factor: 5.182

9.  Mathematical description of the responses of simple cortical cells.

Authors:  S Marcelja
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am       Date:  1980-11

10.  Spatial interaction in human cone vision.

Authors:  G Westheimer
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  1967-05       Impact factor: 5.182

View more
  16 in total

Review 1.  Lateral effects in pattern vision.

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

2.  Selective Colour Vision Deficits in Multiple Sclerosis at Different Temporal Stages.

Authors:  Neda Anssari; Reza Vosoughi; Kathy Mullen; Behzad Mansouri
Journal:  Neuroophthalmology       Date:  2019-06-19

3.  Retina-V1 model of detectability across the visual field.

Authors:  Chris Bradley; Jared Abrams; Wilson S Geisler
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2014-10-21       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Foveated Model Observers to predict human performance in 3D images.

Authors:  Miguel A Lago; Craig K Abbey; Miguel P Eckstein
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2017-03-10

5.  Anisotropy in spatial summation properties of human Ocular-Following Response (OFR).

Authors:  B M Sheliga; C Quaia; E J FitzGibbon; B G Cumming
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2015-03-02       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Ocular following in humans: spatial properties.

Authors:  Christian Quaia; Boris M Sheliga; Edmond J Fitzgibbon; Lance M Optican
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2012-04-20       Impact factor: 2.240

7.  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

8.  Binocular contrast summation and inhibition depends on spatial frequency, eccentricity and binocular disparity.

Authors:  Concetta F Alberti; Peter J Bex
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2018-09-16       Impact factor: 3.117

9.  Simple cell response properties imply receptive field structure: balanced Gabor and/or bandlimited field functions.

Authors:  Davis Cope; Barbara Blakeslee; Mark E McCourt
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 2.129

10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.