Contrast sensitivity to angular frequency gratings is not higher than to Cartesian gratings
AUTOR(ES)
Zana, Y., Cavalcanti, A.C.G.T.
FONTE
Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
DATA DE PUBLICAÇÃO
2004-02
RESUMO
When contrast sensitivity functions to Cartesian and angular gratings were compared in previous studies the peak sensitivity to angular stimuli was reported to be 0.21 log units higher. In experiments carried out to repeat this result, we used the same two-alternative forced-choice paradigm, but improved experimental control and precision by increasing contrast resolution from 8 to 12 bits, increasing the screen refresh rate from 30 Hz interlaced to 85 Hz non-interlaced, linearizing the voltage-luminance relation, modulating luminance in frequencies that minimize pixel aliasing, and improving control of the subject's exposure to the stimuli. The contrast sensitivity functions to Cartesian and angular gratings were similar in form and peak sensitivity (2.4 cycles per visual degree (c/deg) and 32 c/360º, respectively) to those reported in a previous study (3 c/deg and 32 c/360º, respectively), but peak sensitivity to angular stimuli was 0.13 log units lower than that to Cartesian stimuli. When the experiment was repeated, this time simulating the experimental control level used in the previous study, no difference between the peak sensitivity to Cartesian and angular stimuli was found. This result agrees with most current models that assume Cartesian filtering at the first visual processing stage. The discrepancy in the results is explained in part by differences in the degree of experimental control.
Documentos Relacionados
- Comparison of angular frequency contrast sensitivity in young and older adults
- Early malnutrition decreases contrast sensitivity to circular concentric gratings
- Contrast sensitivity gratings in glaucoma family screening.
- Effects of chronic alcoholism in the sensitivity to luminance contrast in vertical sinusoidal gratings
- Contrast sensitivity in multiple sclerosis measured by Cambridge Low Contrast Gratings: a useful clinical test?