Locus of spatial-frequency discrimination.

In standard frequency-discrimination experiments either the retinal spatial frequencies (cycles per degree) or the object spatial frequencies (real world) could be compared, because the retinal and object frequency differences are the same. Current models of spatial-frequency discrimination assume that observers compare the retinal frequencies. I test this assumption by presenting gratings at different viewing distances (with strong depth cues). The object frequencies of the gratings bear the same relationship that they do in a standard frequency-discrimination experiment, but the retinal frequency of the more distant grating is always markedly higher than that of the near grating. The observer's task is to compare the object spatial frequencies. This change from one depth to two (with no change in the stimulus object) has a negligible effect on the observer's performance, suggesting that observers compare object frequencies even in standard spatial-frequency-discrimination experiments. This conclusion is supported by the findings that (1) observers appear unable to learn to compare retinal frequencies and (2) the interstimulus interval has no effect (over the range 0-1020 msec), implying long-term storage of the visual information. Suggests are made about why these results are consistent with good system design.

[1]  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.

[2]  J. Robson,et al.  Spatial-frequency channels in human vision. , 1971, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[3]  H. Wilson,et al.  Spatial-frequency adaptation and grating discrimination: predictions of a line-element model. , 1984, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[4]  J. Robson,et al.  Application of fourier analysis to the visibility of gratings , 1968, The Journal of physiology.

[5]  F. Campbell,et al.  Spatial-frequency discrimination in human vision. , 1970, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[6]  C. Blakemore,et al.  The Site of Size Constancy , 1972, Perception.

[7]  J P Thomas,et al.  Detection and identification: how are they related? , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[8]  J P Thomas,et al.  Underlying psychometric function for detecting gratings and identifying spatial frequency. , 1983, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

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

[10]  D. Regan Storage of spatial-frequency information and spatial-frequency discrimination , 1985 .

[11]  D Regan,et al.  Spatial-frequency discrimination and detection: comparison of postadaptation thresholds. , 1983, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[12]  J Hirsch,et al.  Limits of spatial-frequency discrimination as evidence of neural interpolation. , 1982, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[13]  Alfred H. Holway,et al.  Determinants of Apparent Visual Size with Distance Variant , 1941 .

[14]  S. Klein,et al.  The simultaneous spatial frequency shift: a dissociation between the detection and perception of gratings. , 1974, Vision research.

[15]  Suzanne P. McKee,et al.  The spatial requirements for fine stereoacuity , 1983, Vision Research.

[16]  N. Graham Detection and identification of near-threshold visual patterns. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[17]  H. Wilson,et al.  Modified line-element theory for spatial-frequency and width discrimination. , 1984, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[18]  D Regan,et al.  Independence of orientation and size in spatial discriminations. , 1983, Journal of the Optical Society of America.