Detection of Gabor patterns of different sizes, shapes, phases and eccentricities

Contrast thresholds of vertical Gabor patterns were measured as a function of their eccentricity, size, shape, and phase using a 2AFC method. The patterns were 4 c/deg and they were presented for 90 or 240 ms. Log thresholds increase linearly with eccentricity at a mean rate of 0.47 dB/wavelength. For patterns centered on the fovea, thresholds decrease as the area of the pattern increases over the entire standard deviation range of 12 wavelengths. The TvA functions are concave up on log-log coordinates. For small patterns there is an interaction between shape and size that depends on phase. Threshold contrast energy is a U-shaped function of area with a minimum in the vicinity of 0.4 wavelength indicating detection by small receptive fields. Observers can discriminate among patterns of different sizes when the patterns are at threshold indicating that more than one mechanism is involved. The results are accounted for by a model in which patterns excite an array of slightly elongated receptive fields that are identical except that their sensitivity decreases exponentially with eccentricity. Excitation is raised to a power and then summed linearly across receptive fields to determine the threshold. The results are equally well described by an internal-noise-limited model. The TvA functions are insufficient to separately estimate the noise and the exponent of the power function. However, an experiment that shows that mixing sizes within the trial sequence has no effect on thresholds, suggests that the limiting noise does not increase with the number of mechanisms monitored.

[1]  A. Watson,et al.  A standard model for foveal detection of spatial contrast. , 2005, Journal of vision.

[2]  A. Watson,et al.  Quest: A Bayesian adaptive psychometric method , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[3]  H. B. Barlow,et al.  What does the eye see best? , 1983, Nature.

[4]  C. H. Graham,et al.  The relation of size of stimulus and intensity in the human eye: I. Intensity thresholds for white light , 1939 .

[5]  R. Hess,et al.  Size matters, but not for everyone: individual differences for contrast discrimination. , 2005, Journal of vision.

[6]  N. Graham.  Visual Pattern Analyzers , 1989 .

[7]  J. M. Foley,et al.  Contrast masking in human vision. , 1980, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[8]  M. García-Pérez,et al.  Do Channels Shift their Tuning Towards Lower Spatial Frequencies in the Periphery? , 1996, Vision Research.

[9]  C. Tyler,et al.  Lateral sensitivity modulation explains the flanker effect in contrast discrimination , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[10]  Yasunari Yokota,et al.  Facilitation of perceptual filling-in for spatio-temporal frequency of dynamic textures , 2005 .

[11]  D. Levi,et al.  End stopping and length tuning in psychophysical spatial filters. , 1997, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[12]  J. M. Foley,et al.  Pattern detection in the presence of maskers that differ in spatial phase and temporal offset: threshold measurements and a model , 1999, Vision Research.

[13]  Vision Research , 1961, Nature.

[14]  RussLL L. Ds Vnlos,et al.  SPATIAL FREQUENCY SELECTIVITY OF CELLS IN MACAQUE VISUAL CORTEX , 2022 .

[15]  J. M. Foley,et al.  Human luminance pattern-vision mechanisms: masking experiments require a new model. , 1994, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[16]  R. F. Hess,et al.  The contrast sensitivity gradient across the human visual field: With emphasis on the low spatial frequency range , 1989, Vision Research.

[17]  U. Polat,et al.  What pattern the eye sees best , 1999, Vision Research.

[18]  M. A. Repucci,et al.  Spatial Structure and Symmetry of Simple-Cell Receptive Fields in Macaque Primary Visual Cortex , 2002 .

[19]  M. Georgeson,et al.  Spatial selectivity of contrast adaptation: Models and data , 1984, Vision Research.

[20]  J. Robson,et al.  Probability summation and regional variation in contrast sensitivity across the visual field , 1981, Vision Research.

[21]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

[22]  A. Watson,et al.  The optimal motion stimulus , 1995, Vision Research.

[23]  J. P. Jones,et al.  An evaluation of the two-dimensional Gabor filter model of simple receptive fields in cat striate cortex. , 1987, Journal of neurophysiology.

[24]  W. Wolf,et al.  Matched filters in human vision , 2004, Biological Cybernetics.

[25]  Quick Rf.  A vector-magnitude model of contrast detection. , 1974 .

[26]  D. Kersten.  Spatial summation in visual noise , 1984, Vision Research.

[27]  R. M. Warren,et al.  HELMHOLTZ ON PERCEPTION: ITS PHYSIOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT. , 1970 .

[28]  Joseph L. Zinnes,et al.  Theory and Methods of Scaling. , 1958 .

[29]  Jyrki Rovamo,et al.  Modelling the dependence of contrast sensitivity on grating area and spatial frequency , 1993, Vision Research.

[30]  C. Tyler,et al.  Signal detection theory in the 2AFC paradigm: attention, channel uncertainty and probability summation , 2000, Vision Research.

[31]  J. Robson,et al.  Summation of very close spatial frequencies: the importance of spatial probability summation , 1987, Vision Research.

[32]  J. Robson,et al.  Discrimination at threshold: Labelled detectors in human vision , 1981, Vision Research.

[33]  S. Klein,et al.  Cross- and iso- oriented surrounds modulate the contrast response function: the effect of surround contrast. , 2003, Journal of vision.

[34]  S Marcelja,et al.  Mathematical description of the responses of simple cortical cells. , 1980, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[35]  J. M. Foley,et al.  Contrast detection and near-threshold discrimination in human vision , 1981, Vision Research.

[36]  J. Rovamo,et al.  Spatial integration of signal information in Gabor stimuli , 1999, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[37]  Michael L. Hines.  Line spread function variation near the fovea , 1976, Vision Research.

[38]  D. Levi,et al.  Spatial-frequency and orientation tuning in psychophysical end-stopping , 1998, Visual Neuroscience.

[39]  Christopher W Tyler,et al.  Separating the effects of response nonlinearity and internal noise psychophysically , 2002, Vision Research.

[40]  H. Wilson,et al.  Spatial frequency tuning of orientation selective units estimated by oblique masking , 1983, Vision Research.

[41]  P. Rousseeuw.  Tutorial to robust statistics , 1991 .

[42]  J. M. Foley,et al.  Spatial attention: effect of position uncertainty and number of distractor patterns on the threshold-versus-contrast function for contrast discrimination , 1998 .

[43]  C Blakemore,et al.  On the existence of neurones in the human visual system selectively sensitive to the orientation and size of retinal images , 1969, The Journal of physiology.

[44]  M. Deaton,et al.  Response Surfaces: Designs and Analyses , 1989 .

[45]  G. Westheimer.  Spatial interaction in human cone vision , 1967, The Journal of physiology.

[46]  John M. Foley,et al.  Analysis of the effect of pattern adaptation on pattern pedestal effects: A two-process model , 1997, Vision Research.

[47]  D. Burr,et al.  Spatial summation properties of directionally selective mechanisms in human vision. , 1991, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.