Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T08:58:48.383Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Foveal visual acuity is worse and shows stronger contour interaction effects for contrast-modulated than luminance-modulated Cs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 April 2013

MOHD IZZUDDIN HAIROL ,
MONIKA A. FORMANKIEWICZ  and
SARAH J. WAUGH
MOHD IZZUDDIN HAIROL
Affiliation:
Anglia Vision Research, Department of Vision and Hearing Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK Program Optometri & Sains Penglihatan, Fakulti Sains Kesihatan, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
MONIKA A. FORMANKIEWICZ
Affiliation:
Anglia Vision Research, Department of Vision and Hearing Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK
SARAH J. WAUGH*
Affiliation:
Anglia Vision Research, Department of Vision and Hearing Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK
*
Address correspondence to: Sarah J. Waugh, Anglia Vision Research, Department of Vision and Hearing Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, East Road, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UK. E-mail: sarah.waugh@anglia.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Contrast-modulated (CM) stimuli are processed by spatial mechanisms that operate at larger spatial scales than those processing luminance-modulated (LM) stimuli and may be more prone to deficits in developing, amblyopic, and aging visual systems. Understanding neural mechanisms of contour interaction or crowding will help in detecting disorders of spatial vision. In this study, contour interaction effects on visual acuity for LM and CM C and bar stimuli are assessed in normal foveal vision. In Experiment 1, visual acuity is measured for all-LM and all-CM stimuli, at ∼3.5× above their respective modulation thresholds. In Experiment 2, visual acuity is measured for Cs and bars of different type (LM C with CM bars and vice versa). Visual acuity is degraded for CM compared with LM Cs (0.46 ± 0.04 logMAR vs. 0.18 ± 0.04 logMAR). With nearby bars, CM acuity is degraded further (0.23 ± 0.01 logMAR or ∼2 lines on an acuity chart), significantly more than LM acuity (0.11 ± 0.01 logMAR, ∼1 line). Contour interaction for CM stimuli extends over greater distances (arcmin) than it does for LM stimuli, but extents are similar with respect to acuities (∼3.5× the C gap width). Contour interaction is evident when the Cs and bars are defined differently: it is stronger when an LM C is flanked by CM bars (0.17 ± 0.03 logMAR) than when a CM C is flanked by LM bars (0.08 ± 0.02 logMAR). Our results suggest that contour interaction for foveally viewed acuity stimuli involves feature integration, such that the outputs of receptive fields representing Cs and bars are combined. Contour interaction operates at LM and CM representational stages, it can occur across stage, and it is enhanced at the CM stage. Greater contour interaction for CM Cs and bars could hold value for visual acuity testing and earlier diagnosis of conditions for which crowding is important, such as in amblyopia.

Keywords

Foveal crowdingSpatial resolutionSecond-order imagesAmblyopiaLandolt C
Type
Research Articles
Information
Visual Neuroscience , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , May 2013 , pp. 105 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

Allard, R. & Faubert, J. (2006). Same calculation efficiency but different internal noise for luminance- and contrast-modulated stimuli detection. Journal of Vision 6, 322–334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allard, R. & Faubert, J. (2007). Double dissociation between first- and second-order processing. Vision Research 47, 1129–1141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bertone, A., Hanck, J., Guy, J. & Cornish, K. (2010). The development of luminance- and texture-defined form perception during the school-aged years. Neuropsychologia 48, 3080–3085.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bondarko, V.M. & Danilova, M.V. (1997). What spatial frequency do we use to detect the orientation of a landolt C? Vision Research 37, 2153–2156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chubb, C. & Sperling, G. (1988). Drift-balanced random stimuli: A general basis for studying non-Fourier motion perception. Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, Image Science, and Vision 5, 1986–2007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chung, S.T.L., Levi, D.M. & Legge, G.E. (2001). Spatial-frequency and contrast properties of crowding. Vision Research 41, 1833–1850.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chung, S.T.L., Levi, D. & Li, R.W. (2006). Learning to identify contrast-defined letters in peripheral vision. Vision Research 46, 1038–1047.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chung, S.T.L., Li, R.W. & Levi, D.M. (2008). Crowding between first- and second-order letters in amblyopia. Vision Research 48, 791–801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chung, S.T.L., Li, R.W. & Levi, D.M. (2007). Crowding between first- and second-order letter stimuli in normal foveal and peripheral vision. Journal of Vision 7, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Danilova, M.V. & Bondarko, V.M. (2007). Foveal contour interactions and crowding effects at the resolution limit of the visual system. Journal of Vision 7, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daw, N.W. (1998). Critical periods and amblyopia. Archives of Ophthalmology 116, 502–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Derrington, A.M., Badcock, D.R. & Henning, G.B. (1993). Discriminating the direction of second-order motion at short stimulus durations. Vision Research 33, 1785–1794.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellemberg, D., Allen, H.A. & Hess, R.F. (2004). Investigating local networks interactions underlying first- and second-order processing. Vision Research 44, 1787–1797.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ehlers, H. (1936). The movements of the eyes during reading. Acta Ophtalmologica 14, 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrt, O. & Hess, R.F. (2005). Foveal contour interaction: Detection and discrimination. Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, Image Science, and Vision 22, 209–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flom, M.C. (1991). Contour interaction and the crowding effect. Problems in Optometry 3, 237–257.Google Scholar
Flom, M.C., Weymouth, F.W. & Kahneman, D. (1963). Visual resolution and contour interaction. Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, Image Science, and Vision 53, 1026–1032.Google ScholarPubMed
Formankiewicz, M.A., Waugh, S.J. & Hairol, M.I. (2012). The effects of termination rules on contour interaction in a resolution acuity task with luminance-modulated and contrast-modulated Cs. Perception (Supplement) 41, 156.Google Scholar
Habak, C. & Faubert, J. (2000). Larger effect of aging on the perception of higher-order stimuli. Vision Research 40, 943–950.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hairol, M.I. & Waugh, S.J. (2010 a). Lateral interactions across space reveal links between processing streams for luminance-modulated and contrast-modulated stimuli. Vision Research 50, 889–903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hairol, M.I. & Waugh, S.J. (2010 b). Lateral interactions revealed dichoptically for luminance-modulated and contrast-modulated stimuli. Vision Research 50, 2530–2542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hariharan, S., Levi, D.M. & Klein, S.A. (2005). “Crowding” in normal and amblyopic vision assessed with Gaussian and gabor C’s. Vision Research 45, 617–633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hess, R.F., Dakin, S.C., Kapoor, N. & Tewfik, M. (2000 a). Contour interaction in the fovea and periphery. Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, Image Science, and Vision 17, 1516–1524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hess, R.F., Dakin, S.C. & Kapoor, N. (2000 b). The foveal ‘crowding’ effect: Physics or physiology? Vision Research 40, 365–370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hess, R.F., Dakin, S.C., Tewfik, M. & Brown, B. (2001). Contour interaction in amblyopia: Scale slection. Vision Research 41, 2285–2296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, R.F. & Jacobs, R.J. (1979). A preliminary report of acuity and contour interactions across the amblyope’s visual field. Vision Research 17, 1049–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, R.J. (1979). Visual resolution and contour interaction in the fovea and periphery. Vision Research 19, 1187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Legge, G.E. & Foley, J.M. (1980). Contrast masking in human vision. Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, Image Science, and Vision 70, 1458–1471.Google ScholarPubMed
Levi, D.M. (2008). Crowding–an essential bottleneck for object recognition: A mini-review. Vision Research 48, 635–654.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levi, D.M. & Carney, T. (2009). Crowding in peripheral vision: Why bigger is better. Current Biology: CB 19, 1988–1993.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levi, D.M. & Carney, T. (2011). The effect of flankers on three tasks in central, peripheral, and amblyopic vision. Journal of Vision 11, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levi, D.M., Klein, S.A. & Aitsebaomo, A.P. (1985). Vernier acuity, crowding and cortical magnification. Vision Research 25, 963–977.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levi, D.M., Hariharan, S.A. & Klein, S.A. (2002 a). Suppressive and facilitatory spatial interactions in amblyopic vision. Vision Research 42, 1379–1394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levi, D.M., Klein, S.A. & Hariharan, S.A. (2002 b). Suppressive and facilitatory spatial interactions in foveal vision: Foveal crowding is simple contrast masking. Journal of Vision 2, 140–166.Google ScholarPubMed
Liu, L. (2001). Can the amplitude difference spectrum peak frequency explain the foveal crowding effect? Vision Research 41, 3693–3704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manahilov, V., Calvert, J. & Simpson, W.A. (2003). Temporal properties of the visual responses to luminance and contrast modulated noise. Vision Research 43, 1855–1867.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parkes, L., Lund, J., Angelucci, A., Solomon, J.A. & Morgan, M. (2001). Compulsory averaging of crowded orientation signals in human vision. Nature Neuroscience 4, 739–744.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pelli, D.G., Palomares, M. & Majaj, N.J. (2004). Crowding is unlike ordinary masking: Distinguishing feature integration from detection. Journal of Vision 4, 1136–1169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petrov, Y., Verghese, P. & McKee, S. (2006). Collinear facilitation is largely uncertainty reduction. Journal of Vision 6, 170–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polat, U. & Sagi, D. (1993). Lateral interactions between spatial channels: Supression and facilitation revealed by lateral masking experiments. Vision Research 33, 993–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polat, U. & Sagi, D. (1994). The architecture of perceptual spatial interactions. Vision Research 34, 73–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schofield, A.J. & Georgeson, M.A. (1999). Sensitivity to modulations of luminance and contrast in visual white noise: Separate mechanisms with similar behaviour. Vision Research 39, 2697–2716.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schofield, A.J. & Georgeson, M.A. (2003). Sensitivity to contrast modulation: The spatial frequency dependence of second order vision. Vision Research 43, 243–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, A.T. & Ledgeway, T. (1997). Separate detection of moving luminance and contrast modulations: Fact or artifact? Vision Research 37, 45–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stuart, J.A. & Burian, H.M. (1962). A study of separation difficulty: Its relationship to visual acuity in normal and amblyopic eyes. American Journal of Ophthalmology 53, 471–477.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sukumar, S. & Waugh, S.J. (2007). Separate first- and second-order processing is supported by spatial summation estimates at the fovea and eccentrically. Vision Research 47, 581–596.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tang, Y. & Zhou, Y. (2009). Age-related decline of contrast sensitivity for second-order stimuli: Earlier onset, but slower progression, than for first-order stimuli. Journal of Vision 9, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Westheimer, G. & Hauske, G. (1975). Temporal and spatial interference with vernier acuity. Vision Research 15, 1137–1141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitney, D. & Levi, D.M. (2011). Visual crowding: A fundamental limit on conscious perception and object recognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15, 160–168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolford, G. & Chambers, L. (1984). Contour interaction as a function of retinal eccentricity. Perception & Psychophysics 36, 457–460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, E.H., Levi, D.M. & McGraw, P.V. (2001). Is second-order spatial loss in amblyopia explained by the loss of first-order spatial input? Vision Research 41, 2591–2960.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, E.H., Levi, D.M. & McGraw, P.V. (2005). Spatial interactions reveal inhibitory cortical networks in human amblyopia. Vision Research 45, 2810–2819.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, C., Klein, S.A. & Levi, D.M. (2002). Facilitation of contrast detection by cross-oriented surround stimuli and its psychophysical mechanism. Journal of Vision 2, 243–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar