Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • 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

. 2020 ; 97 (12) : 1053-1060. [pub] -

Language English Country United States

Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

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.

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

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...