PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M E McCourt

Publications and source records attributed to M E McCourt.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2001

The influence of unimanual response on pseudoneglect magnitude.

Various factors influence the degree of leftward error (pseudoneglect) (Bowers & Heilman, 1980) that typifies the performance of normal subjects in line bisection tasks (Jewell & McCourt, 2000). The results of this experiment show that unimanual responding also exerts a subtle but significant modulating influence on spatial attention, as indexed by the differential magnitude of pseudoneglect. Using a forced-choice tachistoscopic line bisection protocol, 184 subjects (92 male and 92 female) bisected horizontally oriented lines (22.3 degrees wide x 0.39 degrees height) presented to central vision in two conditions, in which bisection responses were executed via button presses using the first two fingers of either the left (LH) or right (RH) hand. Perceived line midpoint deviated significantly leftward of veridical (p <.05) in both conditions. There was no significant influence of subject sex (p >.05). A significant influence of unimanual response was revealed (p <.05) where pseudoneglect magnitude was greater in the LH than the RH condition. The results are interpreted within the framework of the activation-orientation theory of attentional asymmetry.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Performance consistency of normal observers in forced-choice tachistoscopic visual line bisection.

Pseudoneglect (PN) refers to the leftward error exhibited by normal observers on line bisection tasks (Bowers and Heilman, Neuropsychologia, 18, (1980) 491-8). Although a thorough review of the literature has shown PN to be relatively robust (Jewell and McCourt, Neuropsychologia, 38, (2000) 93-110), controversy remains concerning the reliability of the phenomenon, with some studies reporting a relatively high incidence of normal subjects with rightward bisection errors. The present experiment assesses the consistency of bisection performance in normal young observers. Right-handed subjects (N=22) participated in a tachistoscopic forced-choice line bisection task. Each subject participated in 7-16 experimental sessions separated by at least 24 h (total bisection measurements=317). Individual bisection performance could thus be evaluated with respect to within-subject variability measures. An eyetracker recorded gaze position during the task in one session. A highly significant mean group bisection error of -0.26 degrees (P<0.001) was obtained (left negative), and individual subject means ranged from -0.55 degrees to +0.03 degrees. Of the 317 total bisection measurements, 9% (28) deviated rightward. Significant (P<0.05) mean leftward errors occurred in 91% (20/22) of subjects. Mean bisection error in two subjects was not significantly different from zero. No subject possessed a significant rightward error. Mean gaze deviation from screen (and line) center ranged from +/-0.9 degrees, and was positively correlated (P<0.05) with bisection error. It is concluded that forced-choice tachistoscopic line bisection measures are highly reliable; a mean correlation of +0.87 exists between mean error based on 15 trials and means estimated from a random sample of only two trials. The incidence of true rightward bisection error in the population of normal right-handed subjects is thus estimated to be less than 5%.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

A multiscale spatial filtering account of the Wertheimer-Benary effect and the corrugated Mondrian.

Blakeslee and McCourt [Blakeslee, B., & McCourt, M.E. (1997). Similar mechanisms underlie simultaneous brightness contrast and grating induction. Vision Research, 37, 2849-2869] demonstrated that a multiscale array of two-dimensional difference-of-Gaussian (DOG) filters provided a simple but powerful model for explaining a number of seemingly complex features of grating induction (GI), while simultaneously encompassing salient features of brightness induction in simultaneous brightness contrast (SBC), brightness assimilation and Hermann Grid stimuli. The DOG model (and isotropic contrast models in general) cannot, however, account for another important group of brightness effects including the White effect [White, M. (1997). A new effect of pattern on perceived lightness. Perception, 8, 413-416] and a variant of SBC [Todorovic, D. (1997). Lightness and junctions. Perception, 26, 379-395]. Blakeslee and McCourt [Blakeslee, B., McCourt, M.E. (1999). A multiscale spatial filtering account of the White effect, simultaneous brightness contrast and grating induction. Vision Research, 39, 4361-4377] developed a modified version of the model, an oriented (ODOG) model, which differed from the DOG model in that the filters were anisotropic and their outputs were pooled nonlinearly. Using this model, they were able to account for both groups of induction effects. The present paper examines two additional sets of brightness illusions that cannot be explained by isotropic contrast models. Psychophysical brightness matching is employed to quantitatively measure the size of the brightness effect for two Wertheimer-Benary stimuli [Benary, W. (1924). Beobachtungen zu einem experiment uber helligkeitskontrast. Psychologische Forschung, 5, 131-142; Todorovic, D. (1997). Lightness and junctions. Perception, 26, 379-395] and for low- and high-contrast versions of corrugated Mondrian stimuli [Adelson, E.H. (1993). Perceptual organization and the jugdement of brightness. Science, 262, 2042-2044; Todorovic, D. (1997). Lightness and junctions. Perception, 26, 379-395]. Brightness matches are obtained on both homogeneous and checkerboard matching backgrounds. The ODOG model qualitatively predicts the appearance of the test patches in the Wertheimer-Benary stimuli and corrugated Mondrian stimuli. In addition, it quantitatively predicts the relative magnitudes of the corrugated Mondrian effects in the various conditions. In general, the psychophysical results and ODOG modeling argue strongly that like SBC, GI, the White effect and Todorovic's SBC demonstration, induced brightness in Wertheimer-Benary stimuli and in the corrugated Mondrian primarily reflects early-stage filtering operations in the visual system.

Contrast Sensitivity↗
PubMed2001

The influence of viewing eye on pseudoneglect magnitude.

Various factors influence the degree of leftward error (pseudoneglect) that typifies the performance of normal individuals in line bisection tasks. This experiment reveals that the eye through which stimuli are viewed also exerts a modulating influence on spatial attention, as indexed by significant alterations in the magnitude of pseudoneglect. Using a forced-choice tachistoscopic line bisection protocol, 24 participants (12 male; 12 female) bisected horizontally oriented lines (22.6 degrees w x 0.39 degrees h) presented to central vision in 3 conditions: left uniocular viewing (L), right uniocular viewing (R), and binocular viewing (B). Perceived line midpoint, a measure of bisection accuracy, deviated significantly leftward of veridical (p < .05) in all viewing conditions, confirming a tonic asymmetry of visuospatial attention in normal young observers. In addition, a significant influence of viewing condition was found (p < .05) where pseudoneglect was greatest in the L condition, followed by the B and R conditions, respectively. Analysis of the slopes of the psychometric functions revealed significantly greater bisection precision in the binocular versus uniocular viewing conditions (p < .05). The results are interpreted to suggest that phasic effects on spatial attention can be produced by uniocular viewing via asymmetric retinotectal projections. The results are consistent with activation-orientation theories of attentional asymmetry.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Centripetal versus centrifugal bias in visual line bisection: focusing attention on two hypotheses.

A variety of stimulus factors have been shown to influence the degree of leftward displacement of perceived line midpoint (i.e., pseudoneglect), which typifies the performance of normal subjects in line bisection tasks [M.E. McCourt & G. Jewell: Neuropsychologia 37, 843-855 (1999); G. Jewell & M.E. McCourt: Neuropsychologia 38, 93-110 (2000)]. One such factor is the position of lines within the visual field, where two conflicting patterns of bisection error have been reported. Some authors report a centrifugal pattern of error, where perceived line midpoint shifts away from the vertical midline, regardless of line position, i.e., relatively leftward for leftward displaced lines and vice versa. Others have reported a centripetal pattern of bisection error, where perceived line midpoint is always displaced centrally, toward the vertical midline, regardless of line position. There is no satisfactory explanation for these discrepant findings. An experiment using a tachistoscopic forced-choice line bisection protocol is described which discloses that neurologically normal right-handed subjects (N=82) typically display a centrifugal pattern of bisection error when lines are azimuthally displaced over a relatively small range, whereas a centripetal pattern is observed when lines are displaced over a wider range. Results from ancillary control experiments, in which eye position was measured during testing, confirm that systematic differences in gaze direction do not occur as a function of line position, and thus cannot account for the different patterns of bisection error. We conclude that stimulus context significantly modulates the strategy with which observers deploy spatial attention. When line position is constant, or varies over a narrow range, observers hold attention steady and widen its aperture to accommodate the relevant range of spatial location. Centrifugal bisection error is thus produced by the asymmetric cueing effect of laterally displaced lines, according to the activation-orientation theory [M. Kinsbourne: Acta Psychologica 33, 193-201 (1970)]. When the range of line position exceeds the aperture of focal attention, we hypothesize that observers adopt a strategy in which attention is dynamically scanned in the direction of azimuthally displaced lines. The effects of attentional scanning on line bisection performance are quite robust. The centripetal scanning proposed to occur for widely displaced lines is consistent with the centripetal pattern of bisection error in this condition.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Asymmetries of visuospatial attention are modulated by viewing distance and visual field elevation: pseudoneglect in peripersonal and extrapersonal space.

Many factors influence the degree of leftward error (pseudoneglect) that typifies the line bisection performance of normal subjects. We find that viewing distance also exerts a modulating influence on spatial attention in normal subjects, as it appears to do in neglect syndrome. Using forced-choice tachistoscopic line bisection, 38 right-handed subjects (15 male, 23 female) bisected horizontal lines (13.7 degrees w x 0.24 degrees h) presented in the midsagittal plane as a function of line elevation (- 3.6 degrees, 0 degrees, and 3.6 degrees relative to horizontal midline) and viewing distance (45 and 90 cm). We find a significant main effect of viewing distance, F (1, 37) = 10.04, p = .003, where pseudoneglect is larger in peripersonal (45 cm) than in extrapersonal (90 cm) space. We replicate an effect of line elevation, F (2, 74) = 4.40, p = .016, where pseudoneglect is greatest in the superior visual field (McCourt and Jewell, 1999). The interaction was not significant, p > .05. Thus, we find evidence for independent spatiotopic (viewing distance) and retinotopic (line elevation) effects on line bisection performance in normal observers, suggesting that the allocation of visuospatial attention is modulated within multiple frameworks.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Pseudoneglect: a review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks.

An exhaustive qualitative (vote-counting) review is conducted of the literature concerning visual and non-visual line bisection in neurologically normal subject populations. Although most of these studies report a leftward bisection error (i.e., pseudoneglect), considerable between-study variability and inconsistency characterize this literature. A meta-analysis of this same literature is performed in which the total quantitative data set, comprising 73 studies (or sub-studies) and 2191 subjects, is analyzed with respect to 26 performance factors. The meta-analytic results indicate a significant leftward bisection error in neurologically normal subjects, with an overall effect size of between -0.37 and -0.44 (depending on integration method), which is significantly modulated to varying degrees by a number of additional task or subject variables. For example, visual bisection tasks, midsagittal-pointing tasks and tactile bisection tasks all lead to leftward errors, while kinesthetic tasks result in rightward errors. Tachistoscopic forced-choice testing methods reveal much greater estimates of bisection error (effect size = -1.32) than do manual method-of-adjustment procedures (effect size= -0.40). Subject age significantly modulates line bisection performance such that older subjects err significantly rightward compared to younger subjects, and to veridical line midpoint. Male subjects make slightly larger leftward errors than do female subjects. Handedness has a small effect on bisection errors, with dextrals erring slightly further to the left than sinistral subjects. The hand used to perform manual bisection tasks modulated performance, where use of the left hand lead to greater leftward errors than those obtained using the right hand. One of the most significant factors modulating bisection error is the direction in which subjects initiate motor scanning (with either eye or hand), where a left-to-right scan pattern leads to large leftward errors while a right-to-left scan pattern leads to rightward errors.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Stimulus modulation of pseudoneglect: influence of line geometry.

A variety of stimulus factors have recently been shown to influence the performance of normal subjects on line bisection tasks (i.e., pseudoneglect), independent of motoric factors such as scanning or hand use [McCourt & Jewell (1999) Neuropsychologia 35, 843-55]. An experiment is described which further examined the modulating influence of line geometry in determining the magnitude of pseudoneglect. Subjects bisected horizontally oriented trapezoidal lines presented in central vision whose narrow end pointed either left or right. A highly significant influence of line geometry was found which modulated a tonic leftward error (i.e., pseudoneglect). The results are interpreted in the context of a "center-of-mass" effect [Shuren, Jacobs & Heilman (1997) Brain and Cognition, 34, 293-300]. Further studies designed to tease apart the potentially independent effects of perceptual and attentional asymmetry on bisection performance are suggested.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Visuospatial attention in line bisection: stimulus modulation of pseudoneglect.

Neglect and pseudoneglect are asymmetries of spatial attention which are often assumed to possess a fundamental theoretical and neurological relationship to each other, although this assumption has never been directly tested and there is as yet no unifying quantitative theory. A total of 217 subjects participated in five experiments demonstrating that both the magnitude and direction of bisection errors in normal subjects (pseudoneglect) are modulated by stimulus factors that similarly influence the magnitude and direction of neglect. Stimulus positional uncertainty did not abolish pseudoneglect, indicating that bisection judgements are made within an object-centered frame of reference. Backward masking line stimuli had no influence on the magnitude of pseudoneglect, signifying that pseudoneglect is not a byproduct of covert directional scanning of the line stimulus in iconic or short-term visual memory. Finally, bisection errors are influenced by the direction of contrast gradients imposed on line stimuli, such that perceived line midpoint is drawn toward the lower-contrast line end. The magnitude and direction of pseudoneglect are modulated by stimulus factors that also influence the magnitude and direction of neglect. Both phenomena are succinctly described as biases in attention (i.e., neglect is a right-bias, whereas pseudoneglect is a left-bias). The two phenomena are modulated by stimulus factors as follows. Line length: there is an increased bias with increasing line length for both phenomena, and a cross-over to an reversed bias for short lines. Azimuthal line position: an increasing bias accompanies increasing leftward placement for both phenomena. Line aspect ratio: there is a decreasing bias with increasing line height for both phenomena. Line elevation: there is a decreasing bias with increasing elevation for neglect, and an increasing bias with increasing elevation for pseudoneglect. The only case in which a factor's influence on the two phenomena is discrepant is for elevation, and this difference is explicable. Taken together these congruencies strongly support the notion that neglect and pseudoneglect are phenomena that are twin manifestations of parameter changes in a unitary set of underlying hemispheric attentional asymmetries.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

A multiscale spatial filtering account of the White effect, simultaneous brightness contrast and grating induction.

Blakeslee and McCourt ((1997) Vision Research, 37, 2849-2869) demonstrated that a multiscale array of two-dimensional difference-of-Gaussian (DOG) filters provided a simple but powerful model for explaining a number of seemingly complex features of grating induction (GI), while simultaneously encompassing salient features of brightness induction in simultaneous brightness contrast (SBC), brightness assimilation and Hermann Grid stimuli. The DOG model (and isotropic contrast models in general) cannot, however, account for another important group of brightness effects which includes the White effect (White (1979) Perception, 8, 413-416) and the demonstrations of Todorovic ((1997) Perception, 26, 379-395). This paper introduces an oriented DOG (ODOG) model which differs from the DOG model in that the filters are anisotropic and their outputs are pooled nonlinearly. The ODOG model qualitatively predicts the appearance of the test patches in the White effect, the Todorovic demonstration, GI and SBC, while quantitatively predicting the relative magnitudes of these brightness effects as measured psychophysically using brightness matching. The model also accounts for both the smooth transition in test patch brightness seen in the White effect (White & White (1985) Vision Research, 25, 1331-1335) when the relative phase of the test patch is varied relative to the inducing grating, and for the spatial variation of brightness across the test patch as measured using point-by-point brightness matching. Finally, the model predicts intensive aspects of brightness induction measured in a series of Todorovic stimuli as the arms of the test crosses are lengthened (Pessoa, Baratoff, Neumann & Todorokov (1998) Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Supplement, 39, S159), but fails in one condition. Although it is concluded that higher-level perceptual grouping factors may play a role in determining brightness in this instance, in general the psychophysical results and ODOG modeling argue strongly that the induced brightness phenomena of SBC, GI, the White effect and the Todorovic demonstration, primarily reflect early-stage cortical filtering operations in the visual system.

Contrast Sensitivity↗
PubMed1997

The effects of gender, menstrual phase and practice on the perceived location of the midsagittal plane.

Women show menstrual phase-related cognitive changes that suggest altered hemispheric activation for a particular task, such that they demonstrate the greatest lateral performance differences on prototypical left hemisphere tasks during the luteal phase and on prototypical right hemisphere tasks during menstruation. Additionally, menstrual phase may alter total cerebral responsiveness, such that response times and performance accuracy for many tasks are best during the luteal phase and most impaired during the menstrual phase. We evaluated the effect of menstrual phase on spatial bisection (a perceptuospatial task) to help further understand hormonally-mediated changes in interhemispheric dynamics. Healthy young adult women and men blindly pointed to their midsagittal plane with either hand. Women were repeatedly tested according to menstrual phase, and men were tested at similar intervals. The mean pointing error in the luteal phase differed significantly from that of all other phases and did not differ significantly from those of men, who pointed significantly to the left across test sessions. These findings suggest that, in space bisection tasks, women are more likely to have asymmetric hemispheric activation during the luteal phase than during the menstrual phase. Thus, space bisection did not resemble other prototypical right hemisphere behaviors. The luteal phase may have nonspecifically activated both hemispheres on this task instead of suppressing right hemisphere function, and a slight functional asymmetry favoring the right hemisphere may have been promoted. In addition, intermanual pointing discrepancies in both subject groups decreased over repeated sessions. This suggests that, while practice alters an internal kinesthetic reference, it does not influence an imaginal extrapersonal spatial reference.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1997

Cognitive and perceptual influences on visual line bisection: psychophysical and chronometric analyses of pseudoneglect.

Perceptual and cognitive influences on line bisection were isolated using a tachistoscopic forced-choice paradigm. Pretransected lines were presented for 150 msec at four orientations ([symbol: see text],-,/ and [symbol: see text]). Subjects made either 'left-right' (for -,/, and [symbol: see text] lines) or 'above-below' (for [symbol: see text],/and [symbol: see text] lines) discriminations in response to each line stimulus, depending upon perceived transector location relative to veridical line midpoint. Median response time and point of subjective equality (P.S.E.) were computed for each treatment condition. P.S.E.s in 'left-right' conditions were significantly left of veridical; response time maxima were similarly displaced. Azimuthal pseudoneglect was greatest for horizontal lines. P.S.E.s in 'above-below' conditions were displaced above veridical, and response time maxima were similarly displaced. Altitudinal pseudoneglect was greatest for negative diagonal lines [symbol: see text]. Azimuthal pseudoneglect significantly exceeded altitudinal pseudoneglect. 'Left-right' responses (mean = 478.3 msec) were significantly faster than 'above-below' responses (mean = 504.6 msec). We conclude that scanning eye and/or gross limb movements do not account for pseudoneglect, and that a significant component must be purely perceptual. Chronometric and psychometric measures of pseudoneglect are in remarkable agreement. The effects of altitudinal and azimuthal pseudoneglect are neither separable nor additive, suggesting the existence of independent mechanisms governing the allocation of spatial attention to objects of differing orientation. The slopes of the psychometric functions for lines of cardinal orientation are significantly steeper than for diagonal lines, which may reflect a processing conflict between these putatively independent mechanisms at diagonal line orientations. Decision context significantly modulates the magnitude of pseudoneglect for physically identical stimuli, perhaps reflecting the selective differential engagement of the vertical or horizontal attentional mechanisms. There are significant individual differences in line bisection performance, even in a very homogeneous sample of strongly right-handed subjects.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed1997

Similar mechanisms underlie simultaneous brightness contrast and grating induction.

The experiments explore whether the mechanism(s) underlying grating induction (GI) can also account for simultaneous brightness contrast (SBC). At each of three test field heights (1, 3 and 6 deg), point-by-point brightness matches were obtained from two subjects for test field widths of 32 deg (GI condition), 14, 12, 8, 6, 3 and 1 deg. The point-by-point brightness matches were quantitatively compared, using GI condition matches as a standard, to assess systematic alterations in the structure and average magnitude of brightness and darkness induction within the test fields as a function of changing test field height and width. In the wider test fields induction structure was present and was generally well-accounted for by the GI condition sinewave predictions. As test field width decreased the sinewave amplitude of the induced structure in the test field decreased (i.e., flattened), and eventually became negative (i.e., showed a reverse cusping) at the narrower test field widths. As expected, both subjects showed a decrease in overall levels of brightness and darkness induction with increasing test field height. For any particular test field height, however, relative brightness increased with decreasing test field width. This brightness increase began at larger test field widths as test field height increased. The results are parsimoniously accounted for by the output of a weighted, octave-interval array of seven difference-of-gaussian filters. This array of filters differs from those previously employed to model various aspects of spatial vision in that it includes filters tuned to much lower spatial frequencies. The two-dimensional output of this same array of filters also accounts for the GI demonstrations of Zaidi [(1989) Vision Research, 29, 691-697], Shapley and Reid's [(1985) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 82, 5983-5986] contrast and assimilation demonstration, and the induced spots seen at the street intersections of the Hermann Grid. The physiological plausibility of the filter array explanation of brightness induction is discussed, along with a consideration of its relationship to other models of brightness perception.

Contrast Sensitivity↗
PubMed1997

Brightness with and without perceived transparency: when does it make a difference?

Subjects matched the brightness of test patches whose inner (adjacent) surrounds appeared either as transparent overlays on a wider background that included the test patch or as regions differing in reflectance from the test patch and the outer surround. In the above configurations the luminance and spatial extent of the inner surround was identical, thus controlling for the effects of surround luminance. Configuration condition had a significant effect on test-patch brightness. In general, test-patch brightness was significantly elevated under conditions favouring the interpretation of the stimulus as including a transparent overlay. The largest effect occurred for the configuration in which the perception of transparency was supported by stereo depth cues. The brightness effect was mediated by the virtual transmittance of the transparent overlay, increasing in magnitude with decreasing transmittance. Further, the effect of transparency on brightness was greatest for test-patch luminances near to those of their immediate surrounds.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Facilitation of luminance grating detection by induced gratings.

Grating induction causes a homogeneous test field surrounded by sinewave gratings to possess an induced counterphase grating [McCourt M. E. (1982). Vision Research, 22, 119]. There is currently no consensus about the stage of visual processing at which illusory phenomena such as simultaneous brightness contrast are signaled. We measured the masking efficacy of induced gratings by measuring contrast detection thresholds for targets (sinewave luminance gratings) added in phase to both real and induced gratings which were matched in apparent contrast. At spatial frequencies below c. 0.5 c/deg, target detection and discrimination were comparably facilitated by both real and induced low-contrast pedestals (0.5-2%). At higher spatial frequencies (above 1.0 c/deg) facilitation continued to be observed for targets added in-phase to real grating pedestals, but occurred only for targets added out-of-phase with induced pedestal gratings. Higher inducing frequencies by themselves were not responsible for the observed phase shift of facilitation, however, since both real and induced pedestals produced similar target contrast discrimination functions when inducing frequency was varied by manipulating viewing distance (which holds the ratio of inducing grating period and test field height constant). The results imply the existence of at least two types of lateral interactive processes: one producing in-phase facilitation, and a second producing out-of-phase facilitation. The relative contribution of each process depends upon the ratio of inducing grating period and test field height.

Contrast Sensitivity↗
PubMed1994

The influence of illusory contours on the detection of luminance increments and decrements.

The experiment of Dresp and Bonnet [(1991) Vision Research, 31, 1813-1817] was replicated and extended to include measurements of both luminance increment and decrement detection across high luminance illusory contours. The results reveal that illusory contours can influence the detectability of both luminance decrements and increments and, in addition, that the magnitude and even the direction of the effect which illusory contours produce on visual thresholds may vary considerably across individual observers. Finally, in contrast to the monophasic pattern of threshold variation across low luminance illusory contours, the pattern across high luminance contours is oscillatory.

Female↗
PubMed1994

Contrast-matching analysis of grating induction and suprathreshold contrast perception.

The effect that induced gratings [Vision Res. 22, 119 (1982)] exert on the perceived contrast of standard gratings situated within a 0.5 degrees test field was assessed for two observers by a contrast-matching procedure. Five levels of inducing-grating contrast, CI, ranged from 0.0 to 0.75. Functions relating matching contrast, CM, to standard-grating contrast, CS, were obtained at four levels of inducing-grating contrast across a range of standard contrasts, -0.90 < or = CS < or = +0.90, where the sign denotes the spatial phase of the standard relative to the inducing grating. The matching functions possessed three distinct limbs separated by two inflection points; the limb between the inflection points represents a region of high contrast gain. Another measure, canceling contrast, was obtained at the four levels of inducing contrast by variation of CS until the test field appeared spatially homogeneous. Induction magnitude measured in terms of canceling contrast, CC, grew approximately linearly with CI, such that CC = 0.819 (CI). Induction magnitude determined from matching-contrast data obtained for homogeneous test fields (i.e., CM for CS = 0.0) grew as a decelerating function of inducing-grating contrast, such that CM = 0.308(CI]1.8 + 0.096), effectively asymptoting at a contrast of approximately 0.275 for CI > or = 0.50. When the difference between the absolute values of matching and standard contrast, magnitude of CM-magnitude of CS, is plotted against the ratio of standard to inducing-grating contrast, CS/CI, the resulting functions are generally biphasic, revealing regions of both contrast overmatching (i.e., magnitude of CM > magnitude of CS) and contrast undermatching, magnitude of CM < magnitude of CS. A four parameter model is presented that accounts for many features of the raw matching functions and that is mathematically similar to Semmelroth's account of the crispening effect in brightness matching [J. Opt. Soc. Am. 60, 1685 (1970)]. The model describes matching contrast, CM, as the weighted sum of two nonlinear contrast-response functions whose inputs are CS and CS-CI. The results are discussed relative to the crispening effect (the effect of contrast adaptation on perceived contrast) and to similarities and differences in luminance and contrast-domain visual processing.

Contrast Sensitivity↗