Literature DB >> 6880630

Central and peripheral normal contrast sensitivity for static and dynamic sinusoidal gratings.

B L Lundh, G Lennerstrand, G Derefeldt.   

Abstract

Contrast sensitivity for moving and stationary sine grating patterns was determined in central and peripheral parts of the visual field. The method was primarily developed as a possible screening procedure for visual defects in glaucoma. Contrast sensitivity to moving patterns seemed maximal both in central and in 10 degrees of eccentric viewing for square wave reversals of temporal frequencies 0.5-5 Hz. We selected 2Hz for the clinical procedure. Further, we have determined normal central and peripheral contrast sensitivity in 10 subjects 61-71 years-old, to serve as a basis for the glaucoma studies. We used this age group since glaucoma mainly affects elderly people. We confirmed that contrast sensitivity was higher for dynamic than for static presentation of gratings of low spatial frequencies (below 1 c/d) both centrally and peripherally. For patterns of medium or high spatial frequencies, dynamic and static stimuli were equally detectable. The absolute level of contrast sensitivity was higher centrally than peripherally in the interval 0.3-4 c/d. The lower visual hemifield exhibited greater sensitivity, for both static and dynamic gratings, than the upper one.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1983        PMID: 6880630     DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.1983.tb01410.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh)        ISSN: 0001-639X


  13 in total

1.  The effects of temporal modulation and spatial location on the perceived spatial frequency of visual patterns.

Authors:  L Marran; E T Davis
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1990-05

2.  Human scotopic spatiotemporal sensitivity: a comparison of psychophysical and electrophysiological data.

Authors:  György Benedek; Krisztina Benedek; Szabolcs Kéri; Tamás Letoha; Márta Janáky
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 2.379

3.  Radial keratotomy and glare effects on contrast sensitivity.

Authors:  A Atkin; P Asbell; N Justin; H Smith; R Wayne; J Winterkorn
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1986-02-28       Impact factor: 2.379

4.  The objective assessment of contrast sensitivity function by electrophysiological means.

Authors:  J W Howe; K W Mitchell
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1984-09       Impact factor: 4.638

5.  Isoeccentric locations are not equivalent: the extent of the vertical meridian asymmetry.

Authors:  Jared Abrams; Aaron Nizam; Marisa Carrasco
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Contrast sensitivity peripheral to an absolute central scotoma in age-related macular degeneration and the influence of a yellow or an orange filter.

Authors:  I C Frennesson; U L Nilsson
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 2.379

7.  Comparing Spatial Contrast Sensitivity Functions Measured With Digit and Grating Stimuli.

Authors:  Haiyan Zheng; Menglu Shen; Xianghang He; Rong Cui; Luis Andres Lesmes; Zhong-Lin Lu; Fang Hou
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2019-11-15       Impact factor: 3.283

8.  Photopic and scotopic spatiotemporal tuning of adult zebrafish vision.

Authors:  Nadine Hollbach; Christoph Tappeiner; Anna Jazwinska; Volker Enzmann; Markus Tschopp
Journal:  Front Syst Neurosci       Date:  2015-03-04

9.  Modulating the global orientation bias of the visual system changes population receptive field elongations.

Authors:  Christian Merkel; Jens-Max Hopf; Mircea Ariel Schoenfeld
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2019-12-24       Impact factor: 5.038

10.  Modeling visual performance differences 'around' the visual field: A computational observer approach.

Authors:  Eline R Kupers; Marisa Carrasco; Jonathan Winawer
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2019-05-24       Impact factor: 4.475

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.