Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T01:25:50.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Systematic misestimation in a vernier task arising from contrast mismatch

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2008

HAO SUN ,
BARRY B. LEE  and
RIGMOR C. BARAAS
HAO SUN*
Affiliation:
Department of Optometry and Visual Sciences, Buskerud University College, Kongsberg, Norway
BARRY B. LEE
Affiliation:
State Universityof New York, State College of Optometry, New York, New York Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Göttingen, Germany
RIGMOR C. BARAAS
Affiliation:
Department of Optometry and Visual Sciences, Buskerud University College, Kongsberg, Norway
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Hao Sun, Department of Optometry and, Visual Sciences, Buskerud University College, Frogsvei 41, P.O. Box 251, 3603, Kongsberg, Norway. E-mail: hao.sun@hibu.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Luminance signals mediated by the magnocellular (MC) pathway play an important role in vernier tasks. MC ganglion cells show a phase advance in their responses to sinusoidal stimuli with increasing contrast due to contrast gain control mechanisms. If the phase information in MC ganglion cell responses were utilized by central mechanisms in vernier tasks, one might expect systematic errors caused by the phase advance. This systematic error may contribute to the contrast paradox phenomenon, where vernier performance deteriorates, rather than improves, when only one of the target pair increases in contrast. Vernier psychometric functions for a pair of gratings of mismatched contrast were measured to seek such misestimation. In associated electrophysiological experiments, MC and parvocellular (PC) ganglion cells' responses to similar stimuli were measured to provide a physiological reference. The psychophysical experiments show that a high-contrast grating is perceived as phase advanced in the drift direction compared to a low-contrast grating, especially at a high drift rate (8 Hz). The size of the phase advance was comparable to that seen in MC cells under similar stimulus conditions. These results are consistent with the MC pathway supporting vernier performance with achromatic gratings. The shifts in vernier psychometric functions were negligible for pairs of chromatic gratings under the conditions tested here, consistent with the lack of phase advance both in responses of PC ganglion cells and in frequency-doubled chromatic responses of MC ganglion cells.

Keywords

Contrast paradoxVernierContrast gainMagnocellularParvocellular
Type
Research Article
Information
Visual Neuroscience , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , May 2008 , pp. 365 - 370
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anstis, S. & Cavanagh, P. (1983). A minimum motion technique for judging equiluminance. In Colour Vision Physiology and Psychophysics, ed. Mollon, J.D. & Sharpe, L.T., pp. 155–166. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Benardete, E.A., Kaplan, E. & Knight, B.W. (1992). Contrast gain control in the primate retina: P cells are not X-like, some M cells are. Visual Neuroscience 8, 483–486.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradley, A. & Skottun, B.C. (1987). Effects of contrast and spatial frequency on vernier acuity. Vision Research 27, 1817–1824.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cormack, L.K., Stevenson, S.B. & Landers, D.D. (1997). Interactions of spatial frequency and unequal monocular contrasts in stereopsis. Perception 26, 1121–1136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halpern, D.L. & Blake, R.R. (1988). How contrast affects stereoacuity. Perception 17, 483–495.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawken, M.J., Gegenfurtner, K.R. & Tang, C. (1994). Contrast dependence of colour and luminance motion mechanisms in human vision. Nature 367, 268–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krauskopf, J. & Farell, B. (1991). Vernier acuity: Effects of chromatic content, blur and contrast. Vision Research 31, 735–749.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, B.B., Martin, P.R. & Valberg, A. (1989). Sensitivity of macaque retinal ganglion cells to chromatic and luminance flicker. Journal of Physiology 414, 223–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Legge, G.E. & Gu, Y.C. (1989). Stereopsis and contrast. Vision Research 29, 989–1004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levi, D.M. (1996). Pattern perception at high velocities. Current Biology 6, 1020–1024.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, M.J. & Aiba, T.S. (1985). Positional acuity with chromatic stimuli. Vision Research 25, 689–695.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rüttiger, L., Lee, B.B. & Sun, H. (2002). Transient cells can be neurometrically sustained: The positional accuracy of retinal signals to moving targets. Journal of Vision 2, 232–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schor, C. & Heckmann, T. (1989). Interocular differences in contrast and spatial frequency: Effects on stereopsis and fusion. Vision Research 29, 837–847.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapley, R.M. & Victor, J.D. (1979a). Nonlinear spatial summation and the contrast gain control of cat retinal ganglion cells. Journal of Physiology 290, 141–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapley, R.M. & Victor, J.D. (1979b). The contrast gain control of the cat retina. Vision Research 19, 431–434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, D.R. & Derrington, A.M. (1996). What is the denominator for contrast normalisation? Vision Research 36, 3759–3766.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevenson, S.B. & Cormack, L.K. (2000). A contrast paradox in stereopsis, motion detection, and vernier acuity. Vision Research 40, 2881–2884.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stone, L.S. & Thompson, P. (1992). Human speed perception is contrast dependent. Vision Research 32, 1535–1549.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sun, H. & Lee, B.B. (2004). A single mechanism for both luminance and chromatic grating vernier tasks: Evidence from temporal summation. Visual Neuroscience 21, 315–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sun, H., Lee, B.B. & Rüttiger, L. (2003). Coding of position of achromatic and chromatic edges by retinal ganglion cells. In Normal and Defective Colour Vision, ed. Mollon, J.D., Pokorny, J. & Knoblauch, K., pp. 79–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, H., Rüttiger, L. & Lee, B.B. (2004). The spatiotemporal precision of ganglion cell signals: A comparison of physiological and psychophysical performance with moving gratings. Vision Research 44, 19–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, P. (1982). Perceived rate of movement depends on contrast. Vision Research 22, 377–380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Virsu, V. & Rovamo, J. (1979). Visual resolution, contrast sensitivity, and the cortical magnification factor. Experimental Brain Research 37, 475–494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waugh, S.J. & Levi, D.M. (1993). Visibility, luminance and vernier acuity. Vision Research 33, 527–538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yeh, T., Lee, B.B. & Kremers, J. (1995). The temporal response of ganglion cells of the macaque retina to cone-specific modulation. Journal of the Optical Society of America A 12, 456–464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed