Literature DB >> 3973752

Postadaptation orientation discrimination.

D Regan, K I Beverley.   

Abstract

An orientational difference of only 0.3-0.5 deg can be discriminated between two gratings or two lines, although psychophysical channels and cortical cells both have comparatively broad orientation bandwidths of 10-25 deg. One proposed explanation for the fineness of orientation discrimination is that, while detection is determined by the most excited orientation-tuned neural elements, superthreshold orientation discrimination is determined by difference signals between these elements [Westheimer et al., J. Opt. Soc. Am. 66, 332 (1976)]. This implies that, if stimulus orientation is changed slightly, the most important elements for discriminating this change will be those whose relative activity changes most, even though the excitation of these elements may be comparatively weak. In accord with this prediction, we found that adapting to a high-contrast grating degraded discrimination for test gratings inclined at about 10-20 deg to the adapting grating while having little effect on the detection of these inclined gratings. For test gratings parallel to the adapting grating, discrimination was improved, but detection was degraded. Either an opponent-process or a line-element model can account for these effects of adaptation. An opponent model can also explain our findings that subjects do not confound orientation change with contrast change and that suprathreshold orientation discrimination is almost independent of contrast, varying by only +/- 10% from about 3 to about 25 times contrast threshold. A discrimination model must incorporate reliable storage of spatial frequency, because discrimination was not affected by increasing the interval between grating presentations from 1 to 10 sec.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Mesh:

Year:  1985        PMID: 3973752     DOI: 10.1364/josaa.2.000147

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A        ISSN: 0740-3232            Impact factor:   2.129


  96 in total

1.  Coding of border ownership in monkey visual cortex.

Authors:  H Zhou; H S Friedman; R von der Heydt
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2000-09-01       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  Intracortical mechanism of stimulus-timing-dependent plasticity in visual cortical orientation tuning.

Authors:  Haishan Yao; Yaosong Shen; Yang Dan
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2004-03-24       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 3.  Computational neuroanatomy of speech production.

Authors:  Gregory Hickok
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2012-01-05       Impact factor: 34.870

4.  Basing perceptual decisions on the most informative sensory neurons.

Authors:  Miranda Scolari; John T Serences
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2010-07-14       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Optimal deployment of attentional gain during fine discriminations.

Authors:  Miranda Scolari; Anna Byers; John T Serences
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2012-05-30       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  Single-neuron responses and neuronal decisions in a vernier task.

Authors:  Ying Zhang; R Clay Reid
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-02-22       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Border-ownership-dependent tilt aftereffect.

Authors:  Rüdiger von der Heydt; Todd Macuda; Fangtu T Qiu
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 2.129

8.  Integration of sensory evidence in motion discrimination.

Authors:  Mehrdad Jazayeri; J Anthony Movshon
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2007-09-20       Impact factor: 2.240

9.  Cortical pooling algorithms for judging global motion direction.

Authors:  Ben S Webb; Timothy Ledgeway; Paul V McGraw
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2007-02-20       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Adaptive allocation of attentional gain.

Authors:  Miranda Scolari; John T Serences
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2009-09-23       Impact factor: 6.167

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.