Biomedical subjects

F L Kitterle

Publications and source records attributed to F L Kitterle.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1993

Hemispheric differences in the interference among components of compound gratings.

The relationship between local/global and high/low spatial-frequency processing in hemispheric asymmetries was explored. Subjects were required to judge the orientation of a high- or low-spatial-frequency component of a compound grating presented in the left visual field (LVF) or right visual field (RVF). In Experiment 1, attention was focused on one or the other component. A signal detection analysis indicated that sensitivity (d') to the high-spatial-frequency target was reduced more by the presence of the low-spatial-frequency component when both were presented in the LVF rather than in the RVF. In Experiment 2, subjects determined whether a target orientation was present, independent of spatial frequency at only a single level (i.e., at the high- or low-spatial-frequency level), as opposed to both or neither level. An RVF/LH (left hemisphere) advantage was found when the decision was based on the orientation of the high-frequency component. The asymmetrical influence of visual field of presentation and spatial frequency upon sensitivity is discussed in terms of hemispheric differences in the magnitude of inhibition between spatial-frequency channels and in the role of transient channel activity to capture and direct higher order attentional processes.

Brain↗

PubMed1992

Visual hemispheric asymmetries depend on which spatial frequencies are task relevant.

Observers classified sine-wave and square-wave gratings on the basis of fundamental frequency (Are the bars wide or narrow?) or on the basis of higher harmonic frequencies (Are the bars sharp or fuzzy?). Stimuli were presented in either the left (LVF) or right (RVF) visual field. When the classification was made on the basis of the fundamental frequencies (1 or 3 c/deg), there was a LVF/right hemisphere advantage. However, when the classification was on the basis of a sharp/fuzzy distinction which involved searching for the higher harmonic frequencies, then a RVF/left hemisphere advantage was found.

Adult↗

PubMed1991

Hemispheric asymmetry in the processing of absolute versus relative spatial frequency.

Observers indicated whether a stimulus presented to one visual field or the other consisted of two sine-wave gratings (the baseline stimulus) or those same two gratings with the addition of a 2 cycle per degree (cpd) component. When the absolute spatial frequencies of the baseline stimulus were low (0.5 and 1.0 cpd), there was a left visual field-right hemisphere (LVF-RH) advantage in reaction time (RT) to respond to the baseline stimulus which disappeared when the 2 cpd component was added (i.e., the stimulus consisted of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 cpd components). When the absolute spatial frequencies of the baseline stimulus were moderate to high (4.0 and 8.0 cpd), a right visual field-left hemisphere advantage in RT to respond to the baseline stimulus approached significance and shifted to a significant LVF-RH advantage when the 2 cpd component was added (i.e., the stimulus consisted of 2.0, 4.0, and 8.0 cpd components. That is, adding the same 2 cpd component caused opposite shifts in visual laterality depending on whether 2 cpd was a relatively high or relatively low frequency compared to the baseline.

Dominance, Cerebral↗

PubMed1991

Visual field effects in the discrimination of sine-wave gratings.

The time needed to decide whether the second of two successively presented sinusoidal gratings was of a higher or lower spatial frequency than the first was measured for spatial frequencies of 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 cycles per degree (cpd) presented in either the left visual field (LVF) or right visual field (RVF). A LVF advantage was found for discriminating within the low-spatial-frequency range (i.e., 1 and 2 cpd), whereas a RVF advantage was found for discriminating within the high-spatial-frequency range (i.e., 4-12 cpd). These findings support the conclusion that hemispheric asymmetries in the processing of gratings arise when comparisons are made between the output of spatial-frequency channels.

Adult↗

PubMed1990

Hemispheric differences are found in the identification, but not the detection, of low versus high spatial frequencies.

The processing of sine-wave gratings presented to the left and right visual fields was examined in four experiments. Subjects were required either to detect the presence of a grating (Experiments 1 and 2) or to identify the spatial frequency of a grating (Experiments 3 and 4). Orthogonally to this, the stimuli were presented either at threshold levels of contrast (Experiments 1 and 3) or at suprathreshold levels (Experiments 2 and 4). Visual field and spatial frequency interacted when the task required identification of spatial frequency, but not when it required only stimulus detection. Regardless of contrast level (threshold, suprathreshold), high-frequency gratings were identified more readily in the right visual field (left hemisphere), whereas low-frequency gratings showed no visual field difference (Experiment 3) or were identified more readily in the left visual field (right hemisphere) (Experiment 4). Thus, hemispheric asymmetries in the processing of spatial frequencies depend on the task. These results support Sergent's (1982) spatial frequency hypothesis, but only when the computational demands of the task exceed those required for the simple detection of the stimuli.

Adult↗

PubMed1986

Psychophysics of lateral tachistoscopic presentation.

Human visual performance depends upon the retinal position to which a target is delivered. A general finding is that performance measured in a variety of psychophysical tasks deteriorates as a target is presented to more eccentric retinal regions. One purpose of this paper is to describe differences between foveal and peripheral vision in a number of psychophysical tasks. A second purpose is to review studies which have attempted to account for the fall off in visual performance between central and peripheral target presentations. A third purpose is to consider the contribution of the periphery to perception since targets which are sufficiently large project not only on receptors in the fovea but also on those in the periphery. In addition, stimuli presented to the peripheral retina can influence the processing of a target presented to the central retinal region. A fourth purpose is to review studies which have attempted to compensate for foveal and peripheral differences by scaling the target in size or some other attribute in proportion to the cortical magnification factor. A final purpose of this paper is to consider whether the fovea and the periphery are specialized for different functions.

Discrimination Learning↗

PubMed1985