Disappearance of grating induction at scotopic luminances.

Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
Vision Research (Impact Factor: 2.38). 02/1990; 30(3):431-7. DOI: 10.1016/0042-6989(90)90084-X
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The dependence of grating induction magnitude on retinal illuminance was examined in two subjects. Grating induction magnitude, as determined using the cancellation technique of McCourt, declines monotonically with decreasing retinal illuminance, effectively disappearing at a value of 0.3-0.5 phot td. In a second experiment, sensitivity differences for test lights of 500 and 600 nm were measured as a function of background illuminance in order to gauge the luminance operating range for grating induction with respect to duplex photoreceptor function. Cancelling contrast (and hence grating induction magnitude) fell below detection threshold contrast at retinal illuminances coinciding with the transition from photopic to scotopic visual function. In a third experiment, spatial contrast sensitivity was measured using both spatially extended (10 degrees) and truncated (2 degrees) sinewave gratings at frequencies below 2 c/deg, at three values of retinal illuminance. Illuminance values corresponded to those where grating induction magnitude was, as determined from the first experiment, either maximal, intermediate or negligible. Similar to grating induction, the strength of lateral inhibition, as indexed by the slope of the low-frequency decline in contrast sensitivity, is progressively reduced with decreasing retinal illuminance, particularly for the 2 degree field. There was, however, using the same criteria, evidence of lateral inhibition at a value of retinal illuminance which did not support grating induction. The implications of these results are discussed with respect to classical brightness contrast phenomena, recent neuroanatomical and neurophysiological evidence of segregated parvo- and magnocellular mediated contrast processing systems, and with results from previous studies of the grating induction effect.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A variety of visual capacities show significant age-related alterations. We assessed suprathreshold contrast and brightness perception across the lifespan in a large sample of healthy participants (N = 155; 142) ranging in age from 16 to 80 years. Experiment 1 used a quadrature-phase motion cancelation technique (Blakeslee & McCourt, 2008) to measure canceling contrast (in central vision) for induced gratings at two temporal frequencies (1 Hz and 4 Hz) at two test field heights (0.5° or 2° × 38.7°; 0.052 c/d). There was a significant age-related reduction in canceling contrast at 4 Hz, but not at 1 Hz. We find no age-related change in induction magnitude in the 1 Hz condition. We interpret the age-related decline in grating induction magnitude at 4 Hz to reflect a diminished capacity for inhibitory processing at higher temporal frequencies. In Experiment 2 participants adjusted the contrast of a matching grating (0.5° or 2° × 38.7°; 0.052 c/d) to equal that of both real (30% contrast, 0.052 c/d) and induced (McCourt, 1982) standard gratings (100% inducing grating contrast; 0.052 c/d). Matching gratings appeared in the upper visual field (UVF) and test gratings appeared in the lower visual field (LVF), and vice versa, at eccentricities of ±7.5°. Average induction magnitude was invariant with age for both test field heights. There was a significant age-related reduction in perceived contrast of stimuli in the LVF versus UVF for both real and induced gratings.
    Vision Research 11/2014; · 2.38 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Under some conditions (dark or light inspection areas) illusory gratings often appear to be in-phase with the inducing gratings and under others (gray inspection area) illusory gratings often appear to be out-of-phase with the inducing gratings. McCourt reported that point-by-point brightness matches reveal only out-of-phase illusory gratings, no matter what the luminance of the inspection area (McCourt, M. E. (1994). Vision Research, 34, 1609–1617). Since the technique used might have led to afterimages which mimic out-of-phase illusory gratings, the present series of experiments was undertaken to determine how such afterimages might bias illusory grating judgments. Afterimages were induced during fixation with brief flashes of inducing gratings within the inspection area (Experiment 1), or by vertical shifts in the entire stimulus which exposed the retina to real gratings prior to judgments within the inspection area (Experiment 2). Experiment 2 was replicated with drifting inducing gratings (Experiment 3). The subjects were asked to indicate whether illusory gratings appeared in- or out-of-phase. The results of all three experiments reveal that out-of-phase illusory gratings predominate, and that afterimages can only bias judgments with stationary displays. It is suggested that grating induction is perceived when subjects attend to local contrast differences, while phantom visibility is facilitated when attention is captured by the more global aspects of the stimulus.
    Vision Research 10/1999; · 2.38 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A horizontal grey bar that drifts horizontally across a surround of black and white vertical stripes appears to stop and start as it crosses each stripe. A dark bar appears to slow down on a black stripe, where its edges have low contrast, and to accelerate on a white stripe, where its edges have high contrast. A light grey bar appears to slow down on a white stripe and to accelerate on a black stripe. If the background luminances at the leading and trailing edges of the moving bar are the same, the bar appears to change speed, and if they are different the bar appears to change in length. A plaid surround can induce 2-D illusions that modulate the apparent direction, not just the speed, of moving squares. Thus, the motion salience of a moving edge depends critically on its instantaneous contrast against the background.
    Perception 01/2001; 30:785-94. · 1.11 Impact Factor