Elsevier

Vision Research

Volume 34, Issue 24, December 1994, Pages 3293-3313
Vision Research

Discrimination of position and contrast in amblyopic and peripheral vision

https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(94)90066-3Get rights and content

Abstract

Many computational models of normal vernier acuity make predictions based on the just-noticeable contrast difference. Recently, Hu, Klein and Carney [(1993) Vision Research, 33, 1241–1258] compared vernier acuity and contrast discrimination (jnd) in normal foveal viewing using cosine gratings. In the jnd stimulus the test grating was added in-phase to the (sinusoidal) pedestal, whereas in the vernier stimulus the same test grating was added with an approx. 90 deg phase shift to the pedestal. In the present experiments, we measured thresholds for discriminating changes in relative position and changes in relative contrast for abutting, horizontal cosine gratings in a group of amblyopes using the Hu et al., test-pedestal approach. The approach here is to ask whether the reduced vernier acuity of amblyopes can be understood on the basis of reduced contrast sensitivity or contrast discrimination. Our results show that (i) abutting cosine vernier acuity is strongly dependent on stimulus contrast. (ii) In both anisometropic and strabismic amblyopes, abutting cosine vernier discrimination thresholds are elevated at all contrast levels, even after accounting for reduced target visibility, or contrast discrimination. (iii) For both strabismic and anisometropic amblyopes, the vernier Weber fraction is markedly degraded, while the contrast Weber fraction is normal or nearly so. (iv) In anisometropic amblyopes the elevated vernier thresholds are consistent with the observers' reduced cutoff spatial frequency, i.e. the loss can be accounted for on the basis of a shift in spatial scale. (v) In strabismic amblyopes and in the normal periphery, there appears to be an extra loss, which can not be accounted for by either reduced contrast sensitivity and contrast discrimination or by a shift in spatial scale. (vi) This extra loss cannot be quantitatively mimicked by “undersampling” the stimulus. (vii) Surprisingly, in some strabismics, and in the periphery, at relatively high spatial frequencies, vernier thresholds appear to lose their contrast dependence, suggesting the possibility that there may be qualitative differences between the normal fovea and these degraded visual systems. (viii) This contrast saturation can be mimicked by “undersampling” the target, or by introducing strips of mean luminance between the two vernier gratings, thus mimicking a “scotoma”. Taken together with the preceding paper, our results suggest that the extra loss in position acuity of strabismic amblyopes and the normal periphery may be a consequence of noise at a second stage of processing, which selectively degrades position but not contrast discrimination.

References (50)

  • LeviD.M. et al.

    Vernier acuity, crowding and amblyopia

    Vision Research

    (1985)
  • LeviD.M. et al.

    Equivalent intrinsic blur in amblyopia

    Vision Research

    (1990)
  • LeviD.M. et al.

    Local contrast and amblyopia

    Neuroscience Letters

    (1992)
  • LeviD.M. et al.

    “Weber's Law” for position: The role of spatial frequency and contrast

    Vision Research

    (1992)
  • LeviD.M. et al.

    Amblyopic and peripheral Vernier acuity: A test-pedestal approach

    Vision Research

    (1994)
  • NachmiasJ. et al.

    Grating contrast: Discrimination may be better than detection

    Vision Research

    (1974)
  • StromeyerC.F. et al.

    Spatial frequency channels in human vision as asymmetric (edge) mechanisms

    Vision Research

    (1974)
  • WaughS.J. et al.

    Visibility and Vernier acuity for separated targets

    Vision Research

    (1993)
  • WhitakerD.

    What part of a Vernier stimulus determines performance?

    Vision Research

    (1993)
  • WhitakerD. et al.

    Interaction of spatial frequency and separation in Vernier acuity

    Vision Research

    (1991)
  • WilsonH.R.

    Model of peripheral and amblyopic hyperacuity

    Vision Research

    (1991)
  • BradleyA. et al.

    Contrast sensitivity in anisometropic amblyopia

    Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

    (1981)
  • CiuffredaK.J. et al.

    Impairment of contrast discrimination in amblyopic eyes

    Ophthalmology and Physiological Optics

    (1987)
  • ColettaN.J. et al.

    Psychophysical estimate of extrafoveal cone spacing

    Journal of the Optical Society of America A

    (1987)
  • CurcioC.A. et al.

    Distribution of cones in human and monkey retina: Individual variability and radial asymmetry

    Science

    (1987)
  • Cited by (59)

    • Frontal cortical regions associated with attention connect more strongly to central than peripheral V1

      2021, NeuroImage
      Citation Excerpt :

      Peripheral vision has lower acuity but is essential for visual tasks such as visual search and getting the gist of a scene (Larson and Loschky, 2009; Rosenholtz, 2016; Trouilloud et al., 2020). Differences in acuity between peripheral and central vision alone do not provide a full explanation of the extent of disparity in visual ability (Levi et al., 1985; Levi et al., 1984). Information processing of central and peripheral visual information also differs.

    • Discrimination of natural scenes in central and peripheral vision

      2011, Vision Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, the representation of foveal vision in V1 seems to be grossly over-magnified compared to receptive-field size or measures of acuity (Azzopardi & Cowey, 1993; Tolhurst, 1989; van Essen et al., 1984). Differences in spatial scaling between peripheral and central vision alone do not explain the full extent of changes in visual ability with eccentricity – performance for different tasks falls off at different rates with eccentricity (Hess & Field, 1993; Levi, Klein, & Aitsebaomo, 1985; Levi, Klein, & Wang, 1994). Furthermore, targets in peripheral vision but not foveal vision are subject to “crowding” – the phenomenon where targets become more difficult to recognise (rather than to detect) when surrounded by other flanker or distractor stimuli (Bouma, 1970, see also reviews by Levi (2008) and Pelli (2008).

    • Contrast masking in strabismic amblyopia: Attenuation, noise, interocular suppression and binocular summation

      2008, Vision Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      All of these monocular results are consistent with those for AV6 here. In the three amblyopes of Levi, Klein, and Wang (1994), there was very little difference between the masking functions in the good and bad eyes when plotted on normalised axes, though facilitation (the ‘dip’) was either absent or shallow in each eye. A recent study by Levi et al. (2007) measured monocular contrast discrimination for noise in each eye in ten amblyopic observers (six of whom were strabismic).

    • Chapter 9 Psychophysical techniques

      2005, Handbook of Clinical Neurophysiology
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Present address: School of Optometry, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, U.S.A.

    View full text