PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

K I Beverley

Publications and source records attributed to K I Beverley.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1995

Visual processing of the motion of an object in three dimensions for a stationary or a moving observer.

A rate of change of relatively disparity is a sufficient binocular stimulus for the perception of motion in depth. For motion within the meridian that contains the eyes, disparity change associated with approaching motion is processed through four channels, each tuned to a different direction of motion in depth. Directional discrimination is most acute but detection sensitivity falls to a minimum for a trajectory passing approximately midway between the eyes. This can be explained if discrimination depends on the relatively of the four channels. Two binocular retinal-image correlates of the direction of the motion of an object in depth are the ratio between the velocities of the retinal images of the object in the left and right eyes [(d phi/dt)R/(d phi/dt)L], and the ratio between the translational velocity of the binocularly fused images and the rates of change of disparity [(d phi/dt)/(d gamma/dt)]. Directional discrimination is possible by using the second cue alone. An isotropic rate of expansion of the retinal image is a sufficient monocular stimulus for the perception of motion in depth. There is no evidence that expansion is processed through channels tuned to the direction of motion in depth. Two monocular correlates of the direction of the motion of an object in depth are the ratio between the translational velocity and the rate of expansion of the retinal image of the object [(d phi/dt)/(d theta/dt)], and the ratio between the velocities of opposite edges of the retinal image [(d alpha 1/dt)/(d alpha 2/dt)]. Subjects are able monocularly to discriminate the direction of motion in depth with high acuity (better than 0.1 deg threshold) in the vertical, horizontal, or oblique meridians, even when the direction and the speed of translational motion are removed as cues. Visual discrimination of time to contact with an approaching object can be disconfounded from discrimination of its rate of expansion and vice versa with a threshold separation ratio of as much as 100:1.

Cues↗
PubMed1985

Postadaptation orientation discrimination.

An orientational difference of only 0.3-0.5 deg can be discriminated between two gratings or two lines, although psychophysical channels and cortical cells both have comparatively broad orientation bandwidths of 10-25 deg. One proposed explanation for the fineness of orientation discrimination is that, while detection is determined by the most excited orientation-tuned neural elements, superthreshold orientation discrimination is determined by difference signals between these elements [Westheimer et al., J. Opt. Soc. Am. 66, 332 (1976)]. This implies that, if stimulus orientation is changed slightly, the most important elements for discriminating this change will be those whose relative activity changes most, even though the excitation of these elements may be comparatively weak. In accord with this prediction, we found that adapting to a high-contrast grating degraded discrimination for test gratings inclined at about 10-20 deg to the adapting grating while having little effect on the detection of these inclined gratings. For test gratings parallel to the adapting grating, discrimination was improved, but detection was degraded. Either an opponent-process or a line-element model can account for these effects of adaptation. An opponent model can also explain our findings that subjects do not confound orientation change with contrast change and that suprathreshold orientation discrimination is almost independent of contrast, varying by only +/- 10% from about 3 to about 25 times contrast threshold. A discrimination model must incorporate reliable storage of spatial frequency, because discrimination was not affected by increasing the interval between grating presentations from 1 to 10 sec.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Adaptation, Ocular↗
PubMed1985

Visual responses to vorticity and the neural analysis of optic flow.

While an observer is moving forward, his retinal image of the outside world contains a flow field. This optical flow field carries information both about external objects and about where the observer is going relative to these objects. Mathematically, the flow pattern can be analyzed into elements that include the curl of local velocity (i.e., vorticity), and it has been suggested that the visual pathway might contain independent neural mechanisms sensitive to these mathematical elements [H. C. Longuet-Higgins and K. Prazdny, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 208, 385-397 (1980)]. To test this suggestion we compared visual responses to two circular areas of random dots, A and B. These two stimuli were identical in that all dots oscillated along a straight line in one of two possible directions. However, the relative phases of dot oscillations were different for A and B, causing A to have a rotary component of motion that B did not have. We found that rotary motion thresholds for a rotary test stimulus were more elevated after adapting to A than after adapting to B, a difference that cannot be explained in terms of visual responses to linear motion, since linear motion components were the same for A and B. This finding is consistent with the idea of a neural mechanism sensitive to the curl of velocity (i.e., vorticity). Adding this to previous evidence for a mechanism specifically sensitive to the divergence of velocity (i.e., dilatation), we suggest that one role of these postulated mechanisms might be to parallel vector calculus by analyzing each small patch of the visual flow field into neural representations of the mathematically independent quantities curl and divergence of velocity.

Biomechanical Phenomena↗
PubMed1984

Patients with multiple sclerosis experience hearing loss specifically for shifts of tone frequency.

After exposure to a prolonged tone of changing intensity but constant frequency, controls, patients with peripheral hearing loss, and patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) demonstrated a reduced sensitivity to shifts in intensity; sensitivity to frequency shifts was unaffected. After exposure to a prolonged tone of changing frequency but constant intensity, control and patients with peripheral hearing loss demonstrated reduced sensitivity to shifts in frequency; sensitivity to intensity shifts was unaffected. Some patients with MS showed no loss of sensitivity to shifts in frequency. Our findings suggest that some patients with MS have abnormal mechanisms for processing changes of frequency. If such processing of frequency change is important for understanding speech, then this observation of a specific central hearing defect may help to explain poor speech discrimination in some patients with MS who have normal audiograms.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1984

Figure-ground segregation by motion contrast and by luminance contrast.

Some naturally camouflaged objects are invisible unless they move; their boundaries are then defined by motion contrast between object and background. We compared the visual detection of such camouflaged objects with the detection of objects whose boundaries were defined by luminance contrast. The summation field area is 0.16 deg2 , and the summation time constant is 750 msec for parafoveally viewed objects whose boundaries are defined by motion contrast; these values are, respectively, about 5 and 12 times larger than the corresponding values for objects defined by luminance contrast. The log detection threshold is proportional to the eccentricity for a camouflaged object of constant area. The effect of eccentricity on threshold is less for large objects than for small objects. The log summation field diameter for detecting camouflaged objects is roughly proportional to the eccentricity, increasing to about 20 deg at 32-deg eccentricity. In contrast to the 100:1 increase of summation area for detecting camouflaged objects, the temporal summation time constant changes by only 40% between eccentricities of 0 and 16 deg.

Humans↗
PubMed1983

Texture changes versus size changes as stimuli for motion in depth.

As an object approaches the eye, its retinal image size grows larger and its surface texture appears to grow coarser. We compare these two visual correlates of motion in their effectiveness as stimuli for motion in depth. In some experiments texture and object size both expanded or both contracted; in other experiments the two stimuli were pitted against each other. When texture and size change as for a rigid, nonrotating real world object an untextured square can be a more effective stimulus for motion in depth than the same square with texture. On way of describing this finding is to calculate the departure from linear summation of texture and size contributions. The departure is greatest when texture is static, being even greater than when texture changes in the opposite direction to size.

Adaptation, Ocular↗
PubMed1983

Visual fields for frontal plane motion and for changing size.

Thresholds were measured in 15 subjects for 2-Hz oscillations of size and for 2-Hz oscillatory motion in the frontal plane using test squares of side lengths 0.5 degrees, 1.0 degrees and 2.0 degrees. Size-oscillation thresholds were lowest (i.e. sensitivity was greatest) for the 2.0 degrees square while thresholds were highest (i.e. sensitivity was least) for the 0.5 degrees square in 28 of 34 tests. Frontal plane motion thresholds, on the other hand, did not generally depend on square size. Equal-threshold contours in the visual field were roughly elliptical in 10 of 13 subjects for both types of oscillation. None of 13 subjects had visual field defects for oscillating-size or frontal plane motion, in contrast with the known incidence of stereo-motion scotomata. One subject was known to be selectively "blind" to stereoscopically-oscillating disparity in some areas of the visual field, but oscillating-size sensitivity was normal in these regions, thus preserving an alternative basis for motion-in-depth judgments.

Adult↗
PubMed1983

Spatial-frequency discrimination and detection: comparison of postadaptation thresholds.

We found that inspecting a sine-wave grating elevated threshold for spatial-frequency discrimination as it does for contrast detection, but discrimination threshold was maximally elevated at about twice the adapting frequency, where detection threshold was little affected; and detection threshold was maximally elevated at the adapting frequency, where discrimination threshold was not elevated at all. Orientation tuning was roughly similar for contrast and for discrimination threshold elevations; elevations fell by half at between 7 and 17 deg from the adapting orientation. We compared our findings with the predictions of three models of discrimination: (1) The data are inconsistent with the idea that the most strongly stimulated channels are the most important channels for discrimination. (2) With an additional assumption, the Hirsch-Hylton scaled-lattice model could account for our finding that discrimination threshold elevations are asymmetric. (3) With no additional assumptions, the idea that discrimination is determined by the relative activities of multiple overlapping spatial-frequency channels or size-tuned neurons can account for our finding that discrimination thresholds are asymmetric. We propose a physiologically based discrimination model: Asymmetrically tuned cortical cells feed a ratio-tuned neural mechanism whose properties are formally analogous to those of ratio-tuned neurons that have recently been found in cat visual cortex. The linear relation between firing frequency and contrast can explain why discrimination threshold is substantially independent of contrast.

Adaptation, Physiological↗
PubMed1983

Visual fields described by contrast sensitivity, by acuity, and by relative sensitivity to different orientations.

Sinewave grating contrast sensitivity was measured as a function of eccentricity and azimuthal angle for four orientations of gratings whose spatial frequencies ranged from 2 to 20 c/deg. Visual fields for cutoff spatial frequency were also mapped. Log contrast sensitivity fell off approximately linearly with eccentricity for all azimuths. Orientational differences in contrast sensitivity varied irregularly over the visual field and, though small for central vision, could reach as high as 25 dB in localized patches at eccentricities greater than about 12 degrees.

Adult↗
PubMed1982

How do we avoid confounding the direction we are looking and the direction we are moving?

Contrary to a previous assumption, the center of the expanding pattern of visual flow is not generally useful as an aid in judging the direction of self motion since its direction depends on the direction of gaze. For some visual environments, however, the point of maximum rate of change of magnification in the retinal image coincides with the direction of self motion, independently of the direction of gaze. This visual indicator could be used to judge the direction of self motion.

Humans↗
PubMed1982

Adaptation to incomplete flow patterns: no evidence for 'filling-in' the perception of flow patterns.

Inspecting a radial flow pattern reduced visual sensitivity to changes in the size of a test square of 0.5 deg side length when the square was accurately located at the point previously occupied by the focus of the adapting flow pattern. The effect was reduced by a third when there was a 1.0 deg diameter hole at the centre of the flow pattern, and abolished when the hole was 1.5 or 2.0 deg in diameter. These findings support the idea that any depression of sensitivity in the hole is entirely due to spread of adaptation from the stimulated region, and provide no evidence for 'filling-in' or 'visual-phantom' phenomena in flow patterns.

Adaptation, Ocular↗
PubMed1982

Spatial frequency discrimination in normal vision and in patients with multiple sclerosis.

This article extends our previous reports that multiple sclerosis can cause a visual dysfunction better described as a distortion than as a blurring of vision. An earlier paper reported that multiple sclerosis spares visual acuity in some patients while reducing visual sensitivity for less fine detail. Specifically, these patients experience a loss of contrast sensitivity for low and/or intermediate spatial frequencies, while contrast sensitivity for high spatial frequencies is unimpaired. We report here that some patients also lose spatial frequency discrimination, so that these patients cannot tell which of two clearly visible gratings has the higher spatial frequency even though control subjects accurately report which grating has the higher spatial frequency. One way of regarding this discrimination loss is in terms of a deterioration of the ability to discriminate size. Contrast sensitivity was measured over the spatial frequency range 1 to 20 cycles/deg using the von Békésy tracking method for 10 patients. (20 eyes) and 16 control subjects (32 eyes). The limit of normality was taken as 2.5 standard deviations from the control mean (99 per cent confidence). Spatial frequency discrimination was measured using the criterion-free method of temporal two-alternative forced choice over the spatial frequency range 2 to 16 cycles/deg for 10 patients (20 eyes), and for 14 to 26 control eyes at each spatial frequency. Three control subjects were studied more extensively over the range 1 to 20 cycles/deg. Control subjects could discriminate two spatial frequencies that differed by more than about 5 per cent. This held for all spatial frequencies tested. Grating contrast had little effect on discrimination, provided that all test gratings were clearly visible. The normal limit for discrimination threshold was set at 2.5 standard deviations from the control mean. Seven of 10 patients have abnormal contrast sensitivity at one or more spatial frequencies. Six of 10 patients had abnormal discrimination at one or more spatial frequencies. At any given spatial frequency the correlation between the magnitudes of sensitivity loss and discrimination loss was weak, though an eye that was less sensitive than its fellow also tended to have poorer discrimination. A more subtle relationship between sensitivity loss and discrimination loss was clearly shown by one patient. Sensitivity loss was restricted to spatial frequencies below 8 cycles/deg, while discrimination loss in the same eye was restricted to spatial frequencies above 8 cycles/deg. We propose that this finding can be straightforwardly understood if discrimination is determined by the relative activities of different spatial frequency channels analogously, to the way opponent-colour mechanisms determine colour discrimination.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1981

Correlations between visual test results and flying performance on the advanced simulator for pilot training (ASPT).

Looking for visual differences in pilots to account for differences in flying performance, we tested five groups of subjects: Air Force primary student jet pilots, graduating (T38 aircraft) students, Air Force pilot instructors, and two control groups made up of experienced nonpilot aircrew and nonflying civilians. This interim report compares 13 different visual test results with low-visibility landing performance on the Air Force Human Resources Laboratory ASPT simulator. Performance was assessed by the number of crashes and by the distance of the aircraft from the runway threshold at the time of the first visual flight correction. Our main finding was that, for student pilots, landing performance correlated with tracking performance for a target that changed size (as if moving in depth) and also with tracking performance for a target that moved sideways. On the other hand, landing performance correlated comparatively weakly with psychophysical thresholds for motion and contrast. For student pilots, several of the visual tests gave results that correlated with flying grades in T37 and T38 jet aircraft. Tracking tests clearly distinguished between the nonflying group and all the flying groups. On the other hand, visual threshold tests did not distinguish between nonflying and flying groups except for grating contrast, which distinguished between the nonflying group and the pilot instructors. The sideways-motion tracking task was sensitive enough to distinguish between the various flying groups.

Adult↗