-
Something wrong with this record ?
Technical Report: The Mechanism of Contour Interaction Differs in the Fovea and Periphery
F. Pluháček, HE. Bedell, J. Siderov, D. Kratkoczká
Language English Country United States
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Fovea Centralis physiology MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Sensory Thresholds physiology MeSH
- Light MeSH
- Color Vision physiology MeSH
- Form Perception physiology MeSH
- Visual Fields physiology MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
SIGNIFICANCE: Both foveal and peripheral contour interactions are based on, as yet, unexplained neural mechanisms. Our results show that, unlike foveal contour interaction, peripheral contour interaction cannot be explained on the basis of the antagonistic structure of neural receptive fields. PURPOSE: Foveal contour interaction is markedly reduced for mesopic compared with photopic targets. This finding is consistent with an explanation based on the antagonistic structure of neural receptive fields. However, no reduction was found for low-luminance targets in the periphery, possibly because the luminances used previously remained substantially above peripheral scotopic detection thresholds. In this study, we compared foveal and peripheral contour interactions for long-wavelength photopic and mesopic targets, which would be expected to significantly elevate the peripheral retinal detection threshold. METHODS: Five normal observers viewed a randomly selected Sloan letter surrounded by four flanking bars at several edge-to-edge separations (min arc). Photopic and mesopic stimuli were viewed foveally and at 6° peripherally through a selective red filter that ensured that mesopic targets were within 1 log unit of detection threshold at both retinal locations. RESULTS: Whereas the magnitude of foveal contour interaction was substantially less at mesopic compared with photopic luminance (20 vs. 46% reduction of percent correct, on average), no significant difference was observed in peripheral contour interaction, which had average mesopic and photopic magnitudes of 38 and 40%. Moreover, confusion matrices representing photopic and mesopic contour interaction differed in the fovea but not in the periphery. The extent of contour interaction did not change with luminance at either retinal location. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that, although the characteristics of foveal contour interaction can be accounted for by the antagonistic structure of neural receptive fields, the same mechanism is not compatible with the characteristics of peripheral contour interaction.
College of Optometry University of Houston Houston Texas
Department of Optics Palacký University Olomouc Olomouc Czech Republic
Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences University of Huddersfield Huddersfield United Kingdom
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc21011811
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20210507104054.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 210420s2020 xxu f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001615 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)33252543
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxu
- 100 1_
- $a Pluháček, František $u Department of Optics, Palacký University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic
- 245 10
- $a Technical Report: The Mechanism of Contour Interaction Differs in the Fovea and Periphery / $c F. Pluháček, HE. Bedell, J. Siderov, D. Kratkoczká
- 520 9_
- $a SIGNIFICANCE: Both foveal and peripheral contour interactions are based on, as yet, unexplained neural mechanisms. Our results show that, unlike foveal contour interaction, peripheral contour interaction cannot be explained on the basis of the antagonistic structure of neural receptive fields. PURPOSE: Foveal contour interaction is markedly reduced for mesopic compared with photopic targets. This finding is consistent with an explanation based on the antagonistic structure of neural receptive fields. However, no reduction was found for low-luminance targets in the periphery, possibly because the luminances used previously remained substantially above peripheral scotopic detection thresholds. In this study, we compared foveal and peripheral contour interactions for long-wavelength photopic and mesopic targets, which would be expected to significantly elevate the peripheral retinal detection threshold. METHODS: Five normal observers viewed a randomly selected Sloan letter surrounded by four flanking bars at several edge-to-edge separations (min arc). Photopic and mesopic stimuli were viewed foveally and at 6° peripherally through a selective red filter that ensured that mesopic targets were within 1 log unit of detection threshold at both retinal locations. RESULTS: Whereas the magnitude of foveal contour interaction was substantially less at mesopic compared with photopic luminance (20 vs. 46% reduction of percent correct, on average), no significant difference was observed in peripheral contour interaction, which had average mesopic and photopic magnitudes of 38 and 40%. Moreover, confusion matrices representing photopic and mesopic contour interaction differed in the fovea but not in the periphery. The extent of contour interaction did not change with luminance at either retinal location. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that, although the characteristics of foveal contour interaction can be accounted for by the antagonistic structure of neural receptive fields, the same mechanism is not compatible with the characteristics of peripheral contour interaction.
- 650 _2
- $a dospělí $7 D000328
- 650 _2
- $a vidění barevné $x fyziologie $7 D055253
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a vnímání tvaru $x fyziologie $7 D005556
- 650 _2
- $a fovea centralis $x fyziologie $7 D005584
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a světlo $7 D008027
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 _2
- $a senzorické prahy $x fyziologie $7 D012684
- 650 _2
- $a zraková pole $x fyziologie $7 D014794
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
- 700 1_
- $a Bedell, Harold E $u College of Optometry, University of Houston, Houston, Texas
- 700 1_
- $a Siderov, John $u Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, United Kingdom
- 700 1_
- $a Kratkoczká, Daniela $u Department of Optics, Palacký University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic
- 773 0_
- $w MED00154917 $t Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry $x 1538-9235 $g Roč. 97, č. 12 (2020), s. 1053-1060
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33252543 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20210420 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20210507104053 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1650245 $s 1132190
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2020 $b 97 $c 12 $d 1053-1060 $e - $i 1538-9235 $m Optometry and vision science $n Optom Vis Sci $x MED00154917
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20210420