The receptive field and internal noise for position acuity change with feature separation.

Humans are exquisitely sensitive to changes in relative position. A fundamental and long-standing question is how information for position acuity is integrated along the length of the target, and why visual performance deteriorates when the feature separation increases. To address this question, we used a target made of discrete samples, each subjected to binary positional noise, combined with reverse correlation to estimate the behavioral "receptive field" (template), and a novel 10-pass method to quantify the internal noise that limits position acuity. Our results show that human observers weigh individual parts of the stimulus differently and importantly, that the shape of the template changes markedly with feature separation. Compared to an ideal observer, human performance is limited by a template that becomes less efficient as feature separation increases and by an increase in random internal noise. Although systematic internal noise is thought to be one of the important components limiting detection thresholds, we found that systematic noise is negligible in our position task.

[1]  Thom Carney,et al.  Can sinusoidal vernier acuity be predicted by contrast discrimination? , 1993, Vision Research.

[2]  Suzanne P. McKee,et al.  Integration regions for visual hyperacuity , 1977, Vision Research.

[3]  Dario L. Ringach,et al.  Dynamics of orientation tuning in macaque primary visual cortex , 1997, Nature.

[4]  A. Ahumada Classification image weights and internal noise level estimation. , 2002, Journal of vision.

[5]  Dennis M. Levi,et al.  “Weber's law” for position: Unconfounding the role of separation and eccentricity , 1988, Vision Research.

[6]  P. Bennett,et al.  Deriving behavioural receptive fields for visually completed contours , 2000, Current Biology.

[7]  D. Whitaker What part of a vernier stimulus determines performance? , 1993, Vision Research.

[8]  P. Neri Estimation of nonlinear psychophysical kernels. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[9]  Robert F. Hess,et al.  Neural recruitment explains “weber's law” of spatial position , 1993, Vision Research.

[10]  Hugh R. Wilson,et al.  Responses of spatial mechanisms can explain hyperacuity , 1986, Vision Research.

[11]  S. Klein,et al.  Hyperacuity thresholds of 1 sec: theoretical predictions and empirical validation. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[12]  G Westheimer,et al.  Editorial: Visual acuity and hyperacuity. , 1975, Investigative ophthalmology.

[13]  Stanley A. Klein,et al.  What is the signal in noise , 2004 .

[14]  R. J. Watt,et al.  Towards a general theory of the visual acuities for shape and spatial arrangement , 1984, Vision Research.

[15]  W S Geisler,et al.  Physical limits of acuity and hyperacuity. , 1984, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[16]  A. Parker,et al.  Sense and the single neuron: probing the physiology of perception. , 1998, Annual review of neuroscience.

[17]  Roger W Li,et al.  Perceptual learning improves efficiency by re-tuning the decision 'template' for position discrimination , 2004, Nature Neuroscience.

[18]  Dennis M Levi,et al.  Noise Provides Some New Signals About the Spatial Vision of Amblyopes , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[19]  Dennis M. Levi,et al.  “Phase capture” in the perception of interpolated shape: cue combination and the influence function , 2003, Vision Research.

[20]  S. Klein,et al.  Sampling in spatial vision , 1986, Nature.

[21]  D M Levi,et al.  Spatial alignment across gaps: contributions of orientation and spatial scale. , 1995, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[22]  Dennis M. Levi,et al.  The role of separation and eccentricity in encoding position , 1990, Vision Research.

[23]  K. Oatley,et al.  Vernier acuity as affected by target length and separation , 1972 .

[24]  F. Best,et al.  Ueber die Grenzen der Sehschärfe , 1901 .

[25]  D. Pelli The quantum efficiency of vision , 1990 .

[26]  D. M. Green,et al.  CONSISTENCY OF AUDITORY DETECTION JUDGMENTS. , 1963, Psychology Review.

[27]  I. Ohzawa,et al.  Functional Micro-Organization of Primary Visual Cortex: Receptive Field Analysis of Nearby Neurons , 1999, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[28]  Dennis M. Levi,et al.  Unmasking the mechanisms for Vernier acuity: evidence for a template model for Vernier acuity , 2000, Vision Research.

[29]  Albert J. Ahumada,et al.  Technique to extract relevant image features for visual tasks , 1998, Electronic Imaging.

[30]  Dennis M Levi,et al.  Classification images for detection and position discrimination in the fovea and parafovea. , 2002, Journal of vision.

[31]  H. Barlow Retinal noise and absolute threshold. , 1956, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[32]  Y. Y. Zeevi,et al.  Vernier acuity with noisy lines: Estimation of relative position uncertainty , 2004, Biological Cybernetics.

[33]  Cong Yu,et al.  Perceptual learning in contrast discrimination and the (minimal) role of context. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[34]  R. J. Watt,et al.  The use of different cues in vernier acuity , 1983, Vision Research.

[35]  David Whitaker,et al.  Isolation of stimulus characteristics contributing to Weber's law for position , 2002, Vision Research.