scholarly journals Similar contrast sensitivity functions measured using psychophysics and optokinetic nystagmus

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven C. Dakin ◽  
Philip R. K. Turnbull
Keyword(s):  
Contrast Sensitivity ◽  
Optokinetic Nystagmus ◽  
Sensitivity Functions

scholarly journals Predicting individual contrast sensitivity functions from acuity and letter contrast sensitivity measurements

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (15) ◽  
pp. 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven M. Thurman ◽  
Pinakin Gunvant Davey ◽  
Kaydee Lynn McCray ◽  
Violeta Paronian ◽  
Aaron R. Seitz
Keyword(s):  
Contrast Sensitivity ◽  
Sensitivity Functions ◽  
Individual Contrast

Visual Contrast Sensitivity Functions Obtained with Colored and Achromatic Gratings

1979 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Nelson ◽  
Ronald L. Halberg
Keyword(s):  
Contrast Sensitivity ◽  
Spatial Information ◽  
Sensitivity Functions ◽  
Visual Contrast ◽  
Spatial Frequencies ◽  
Sinusoidal Gratings ◽  
Visual Contrast Sensitivity ◽  
Contrast Thresholds

Threshold contrasts for red, green, and achromatic sinusoidal gratings were measured. Spatial frequencies ranged from 0.25 to 15 cycles/deg. No significant differences in contrast thresholds were found among the three grating types. From this finding it was concluded that, under conditions of normal viewing, no significant differences should be expected in the acquisition of spatial information from monochromatic or achromatic displays of equal resolution.

Comparison of contrast sensitivity in macaque monkeys and humans

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 ◽  
Author(s):  
William H. Ridder ◽  
Kai Ming Zhang ◽  
Apoorva Karsolia ◽  
Michael Engles ◽  
James Burke
Keyword(s):  
Contrast Sensitivity ◽  
Macaca Mulatta ◽  
Macaca Fascicularis ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Macaca Nemestrina ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Sensitivity Functions ◽  
Spatial Frequencies ◽  
Double Exponential ◽  
Normal Humans

AbstractContrast sensitivity functions reveal information about a subject’s overall visual ability and have been investigated in several species of nonhuman primates (NHPs) with experimentally induced amblyopia and glaucoma. However, there are no published studies comparing contrast sensitivity functions across these species of normal NHPs. The purpose of this investigation was to compare contrast sensitivity across these primates to determine whether they are similar. Ten normal humans and eight normal NHPs (Macaca fascicularis) took part in this project. Previously published data from Macaca mulatta and Macaca nemestrina were also compared. Threshold was operationally defined as two misses in a row for a descending method of limits. A similar paradigm was used for the humans except that the descending method of limits was combined with a spatial, two-alternative forced choice (2-AFC) technique. The contrast sensitivity functions were fit with a double exponential function. The averaged peak contrast sensitivity, peak spatial frequency, acuity, and area under the curve for the humans were 268.9, 3.40 cpd, 27.3 cpd, and 2345.4 and for the Macaca fascicularis were 99.2, 3.93 cpd, 26.1 cpd, and 980.9. A two-sample t-test indicated that the peak contrast sensitivities (P = 0.001) and areas under the curve (P = 0.010) were significantly different. The peak spatial frequencies (P = 0.150) and the extrapolated visual acuities (P = 0.763) were not different. The contrast sensitivities for the Macaca fascicularis, Macaca mulatta, and Macaca nemestrina were qualitatively and quantitatively similar. The contrast sensitivity functions for the NHPs had lower peak contrast sensitivities and areas under the curve than the humans. Even though different methods have been used to measure contrast sensitivity in different species of NHP, the functions are similar. The contrast sensitivity differences and similarities between humans and NHPs need to be considered when using NHPs to study human disease.

scholarly journals Author Correction: Efficient Characterization and Classification of Contrast Sensitivity Functions in Aging

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fang-Fang Yan ◽  
Fang Hou ◽  
Zhong-Lin Lu ◽  
Xiaopeng Hu ◽  
Chang-Bing Huang
Keyword(s):  
Contrast Sensitivity ◽  
Sensitivity Functions

Evaluation of Human Contrast Sensitivity Functions Used in the Nonprewhitening Model Observer with Eye Filter

2014 ◽  
pp. 715-722 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramona W. Bouwman ◽  
Ruben E. van Engen ◽  
David R. Dance ◽  
Kenneth C. Young ◽  
Wouter J. H. Veldkamp
Keyword(s):  
Contrast Sensitivity ◽  
Sensitivity Functions ◽  
Model Observer

Spatial Integration of Objectively Equiluminous Chromatic Gratings

Perception ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 26 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 200-200
Author(s):  
M I Kankaanpää ◽  
J Rovamo ◽  
H T Kukkonen ◽  
J Hallikainen
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Frequency ◽  
Contrast Sensitivity ◽  
Spatial Integration ◽  
Chromatic Contrast ◽  
Shape Difference ◽  
Sensitivity Functions ◽  
Spatial Frequencies ◽  
Low Pass ◽  
Chromatic Aberrations ◽  
Chromatic Contrast Sensitivity

Contrast sensitivity functions for achromatic and chromatic gratings tend to be band-pass and low-pass in shape, respectively. Our aim was to test whether spatial integration contributes to the shape difference found at low spatial frequencies. We measured binocular chromatic contrast sensitivity as a function of grating area for objectively equiluminous red - green and blue - yellow chromatic gratings. Chromatic contrast refers to the Michelson contrast of either of the two chromatic component gratings presented in counterphase against the combined background. Grating area ( A) varied from 1 to 256 square cycles ( Af2) at spatial frequencies ( f) of 0.125 – 4.0 cycles deg−1. We used only horizontal gratings at low and medium spatial frequencies to minimise the transverse and longitudinal chromatic aberrations due to ocular optics. At all spatial frequencies studied, chromatic contrast sensitivity increased with grating area. Ac was found to be constant at low spatial frequencies (0.125 – 0.5 cycles deg−1) but decreased in inverse proportion to increasing spatial frequency at 1 – 4 cycles deg−1. Thus, spatial integration depends similarly on spatial frequency for achromatic (Luntinen et al, 1995 Vision Research35 2339 – 2346) and chromatic gratings, and differences in spatial integration do not contribute to the shape difference of the respective contrast sensitivity functions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document