Foveal blur discrimination of the human eye

Although the effect of retinal defocus on the foveal blur detection threshold has been well investigated, knowledge regarding the foveal blur discrimination threshold is limited. In the present study, both thresholds were assessed psychophysically using the ascending method of limits at the fovea with accommodation paralyzed. The unidirectional blur detection threshold was 0.87 ± 0.18 D (±1 S.E.M.). The subsequent blur discrimination thresholds were relatively constant and significantly smaller than the blur detection threshold, with an average value of 0.48 ± 0.006 D (±1 S.E.M.). We speculate that the difference in magnitude between these two thresholds may be attributed to the defocus‐related change in the ocular modulation transfer function (MTF) and its interaction with contrast discrimination ability, as well as to the presence of a neuroperceptual blur buffering mechanism.

[1]  W. Ehrenstein,et al.  Psychophysical Methods , 1999 .

[2]  R. Watt,et al.  The recognition and representation of edge blur: Evidence for spatial primitives in human vision , 1983, Vision Research.

[3]  P. Denieul,et al.  Effects of stimulus vergence on mean accommodation response, microfluctuations of accommodation and optical quality of the human eye , 1982, Vision Research.

[4]  W. N. Charman,et al.  Visual sensitivity to temporal change in focus and its relevance to the accommodation response , 1988, Vision Research.

[5]  H. H. Hopkins.  The frequency response of a defocused optical system , 1955, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences.

[6]  G. Mather,et al.  Blur Discrimination and its Relation to Blur-Mediated Depth Perception , 2002, Perception.

[7]  Kenneth J Ciuffreda,et al.  Static aspects of accommodation: age and presbyopia , 2004, Vision Research.

[8]  M. J. Morgan,et al.  Contrast detection facilitation by spatially separated targets and inducers , 1995, Vision Research.

[9]  David A. Atchison,et al.  Optics of the Human Eye , 2023 .

[10]  W. Charman,et al.  EFFECTS OF 0.1% CYCLOPENTOLATE OR 10% PHENYLEPHRINE ON PUPIL DIAMETER AND ACCOMMODATION , 1986, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[11]  Robert M. Springer,et al.  Raggedness of edges , 1981 .

[12]  W. Charman,et al.  The optical quality of the monochromatic retinal image as a function of focus. , 1976, The British journal of physiological optics.

[13]  S. McKee,et al.  Spatial configurations for visual hyperacuity , 1977, Vision Research.

[14]  Bin Wang,et al.  Depth-of-focus of the human eye in the near retinal periphery , 2003, Vision Research.

[15]  G. Mather.  The Use of Image Blur as a Depth Cue , 1997, Perception.

[16]  I. Ohzawa,et al.  A comparison of contrast detection and discrimination , 1986, Vision Research.

[17]  G Smith,et al.  Effect of Defocus on Blur Thresholds and on Thresholds of Perceived Change in Blur: Comparison of Source and Observer Methods , 1989, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[18]  M. Rosenfield,et al.  A COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTS OF CYCLOPLEGICS ON ACCOMMODATION ABILITY FOR DISTANCE VISION AND ON THE APPARENT NEAR POINT , 1986, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[19]  J Nachmias,et al.  Letter: Grating contrast: discrimination may be better than detection. , 1974, Vision research.

[20]  C. A. Dvorak,et al.  Detection and discrimination of blur in edges and lines , 1981 .