Contrast discrimination in noise.

Even the highest contrast sensitivities that humans can achieve for the detection of targets on uniform fields fall far short of ideal values. Recent theoretical formulations have attributed departures from ideal performance to two factors--the existence of internal noise within the observer and suboptimal stimulus information sampling by the observer. It has been postulated that the contributions of these two factors can be evaluated separately by measuring contrast-detection thresholds as a function of the level of externally added visual noise. We wished to determine whether a similar analysis could be applied to contrast discrimination and whether variation of the increment threshold with pedestal contrast is due to changes in internal noise or sampling efficiency. We measured contrast-increment thresholds as a function of noise spectral density for near-threshold and suprathreshold pedestal contrasts. The experiments were conducted separately for static and dynamic noise. Our findings indicate that the same formulation can be applied to contrast discrimination and that changes in the estimated values of internal noise, rather than changes in sampling efficiency, play the major role in determining properties of contrast discrimination. Implications for models of contrast coding in vision are discussed.

[1]  Theodore G. Birdsall,et al.  Definitions of d′ and η as Psychophysical Measures , 1958 .

[2]  W. Hays.  Statistics for psychologists , 1963 .

[3]  N. Nagaraja,et al.  Effect of Luminance Noise on Contrast Thresholds , 1964 .

[4]  E. H. Linfoot.  Fourier Methods in Optical Image Evaluation , 1964 .

[5]  D. G. Green,et al.  Optical and retinal factors affecting visual resolution. , 1965, The Journal of physiology.

[6]  David Jaarsma,et al.  More on the Detection of One of M Orthogonal Signals , 1967 .

[7]  W. A. Wickelgren,et al.  Unidimensional strength theory and component analysis of noise in absolute and comparative judgments , 1968 .

[8]  S. Klein,et al.  Spatial frequency channels in human vision as asymmetric (edge) mechanisms. , 1974, Vision research.

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

[10]  C. R. Carlson,et al.  Nonlinear spatial-frequency signal-detection model for the human visual system (A) , 1978 .

[11]  G. Legge.  Spatial frequency masking in human vision: binocular interactions. , 1979, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

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

[13]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Efficiency of human visual signal discrimination. , 1981, Science.

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

[15]  Theodore E. Cohn,et al.  Why luminance discrimination may be better than detection , 1981, Vision Research.

[16]  G. Legge.  A power law for contrast discrimination , 1981, Vision Research.

[17]  Gordon E. Legge,et al.  Light and dark bars; contrast discrimination , 1983, Vision Research.

[18]  H. B. Barlow,et al.  The precision of numerosity discrimination in arrays of random dots , 1983, Vision Research.

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

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

[21]  Gordon E. Legge,et al.  Binocular contrast summation—II. Quadratic summation , 1984, Vision Research.

[22]  A Burgess.  Effect of quantization noise on visual signal detection in noisy images. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[23]  D G Pelli,et al.  Uncertainty explains many aspects of visual contrast detection and discrimination. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[24]  W. Geisler,et al.  Ideal discriminators in spatial vision: two-point stimuli. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.