Literature DB >> 1798037

Human peripheral spatial resolution for achromatic and chromatic stimuli: limits imposed by optical and retinal factors.

S J Anderson1, K T Mullen, R F Hess.   

Abstract

1. The aim of this study was to determine whether optical, receptoral or higher-order neural properties limit spatial resolution (acuity) in human vision, especially in the peripheral regions of the visual field. 2. Both achromatic and chromatic stimuli were used, and measures were taken to ensure that the resolution estimates were not contaminated by the detection of spatial sampling artifacts. Spatial contrast sensitivity functions were measured at retinal locations from 0 to 55 deg along the naso-temporal meridian for: (i) discriminating the direction of drift of luminance-modulated (black-white) sinusoidal stimuli drifting at 8 Hz (achromatic task); and (ii) for detecting isoluminant red-green sinusoidal stimuli drifting at 0.4 Hz (chromatic task). Achromatic contrast sensitivity functions were also measured along the vertical meridian for eccentricities of 8 and 40 deg. Each achromatic function was extrapolated to a contrast sensitivity of one (100% contrast) to estimate achromatic acuity. Chromatic acuities were obtained by expressing chromatic contrast in terms of cone contrasts and using the same method of extrapolation. We compared the results with recent data on human optical properties and retinal anatomy. 3. Both achromatic and chromatic acuity decline with distance from the fovea, but at a faster rate than that dictated by the known optical and/or receptoral properties of the human eye. We conclude that, for stimuli of either achromatic or chromatic contrast, peripheral spatial resolution is limited by post-receptoral mechanisms. Also, chromatic acuity declines more steeply than luminance acuity with eccentricity suggesting that there are additional post-receptoral limitations on colour resolution in the periphery. 4. A clear naso-temporal asymmetry is seen in the resolution whose dependence is qualitatively, but not quantitatively, similar to the Nyquist limits imposed by the asymmetric density of human retinal ganglion cells. We discuss the possibility that in peripheral vision (beyond the optic nerve head) the spacing of ganglion cells may pose a fundamental limit on the resolution of achromatic stimuli, but not chromatic stimuli.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1798037      PMCID: PMC1179877          DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.1991.sp018781

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Physiol        ISSN: 0022-3751            Impact factor:   5.182


  38 in total

1.  Cortical magnification factor and the ganglion cell density of the primate retina.

Authors:  H Wässle; U Grünert; J Röhrenbeck; B B Boycott
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1989-10-19       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Vision beyond the resolution limit: aliasing in the periphery.

Authors:  L N Thibos; D J Walsh; F E Cheney
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 1.886

3.  The physical limits of grating visibility.

Authors:  M S Banks; W S Geisler; P J Bennett
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  Orientation discrimination as a function of stimulus eccentricity and size: nasal/temporal retinal asymmetry.

Authors:  M A Paradiso; T Carney
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  Receptive field size of human motion detection units.

Authors:  S J Anderson; D C Burr
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Retinal limits to the detection and resolution of gratings.

Authors:  L N Thibos; F E Cheney; D J Walsh
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A       Date:  1987-08       Impact factor: 2.129

7.  Aliasing in the parafovea with incoherent light.

Authors:  R A Smith; P F Cass
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A       Date:  1987-08       Impact factor: 2.129

8.  Cone spacing and the visual resolution limit.

Authors:  D R Williams; N J Coletta
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A       Date:  1987-08       Impact factor: 2.129

9.  Aliasing in human foveal vision.

Authors:  D R Williams
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 1.886

10.  Retinal ganglion cells that project to the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus in the macaque monkey.

Authors:  V H Perry; R Oehler; A Cowey
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  1984-08       Impact factor: 3.590

View more
  48 in total

1.  Estimation of spatial scale across the visual field using sinusoidal stimuli.

Authors:  Kelsey M Keltgen; William H Swanson
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2012-02-02       Impact factor: 4.799

2.  Chromatic detection from cone photoreceptors to V1 neurons to behavior in rhesus monkeys.

Authors:  Charles A Hass; Juan M Angueyra; Zachary Lindbloom-Brown; Fred Rieke; Gregory D Horwitz
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.240

Review 3.  Why rods and cones?

Authors:  T D Lamb
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2015-11-13       Impact factor: 3.775

4.  Functional evidence for cone-specific connectivity in the human retina.

Authors:  Chara Vakrou; David Whitaker; Paul V McGraw; Declan McKeefry
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2005-04-21       Impact factor: 5.182

5.  A cortical pooling model of spatial summation for perimetric stimuli.

Authors:  Fei Pan; William H Swanson
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2006-10-13       Impact factor: 2.240

6.  Treadmill locomotion captures visual perception of apparent motion.

Authors:  Yoshiko Yabe; Gentaro Taga
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-08-21       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Naso-temporal asymmetry for signals invisible to the retinotectal pathway.

Authors:  Aline Bompas; Thomas Sterling; Robert D Rafal; Petroc Sumner
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2008-05-14       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  Imaging light responses of foveal ganglion cells in the living macaque eye.

Authors:  Lu Yin; Benjamin Masella; Deniz Dalkara; Jie Zhang; John G Flannery; David V Schaffer; David R Williams; William H Merigan
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2014-05-07       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Contour enhancement benefits older adults with simulated central field loss.

Authors:  Miyoung Kwon; Chaithanya Ramachandra; Premnandhini Satgunam; Bartlett W Mel; Eli Peli; Bosco S Tjan
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 1.973

10.  The mechanisms of vision loss associated with a cotton wool spot.

Authors:  Toco Y P Chui; Larry N Thibos; Arthur Bradley; Stephen A Burns
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2009-08-22       Impact factor: 1.886

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.