Biomedical subjects

Mark A Georgeson

Publications and source records attributed to Mark A Georgeson.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2003

Sensitivity to contrast modulation: the spatial frequency dependence of second-order vision.

We consider the overall shape of the second-order modulation sensitivity function (MSF). Because second-order modulations of local contrast or orientation require a carrier signal, it is necessary to evaluate modulation sensitivity against a variety of carriers before reaching a general conclusion about second-order sensitivity. Here we present second-order sensitivity functions for new carrier types (low pass (1/f) noise, and high pass noise) and demonstrate that, when first-order artefacts have been accounted for, the shape of the resulting MSFs are similar to one another and to those for white and broad band noise. They are all low pass with a likely upper frequency limit in the range 10-20 c/deg, suggesting that detection of second-order stimuli is relatively insensitive to the structure of the carrier signal. This result contrasts strongly with that found for (first-order) luminance modulations of the same noise types. Here the noise acts as mask and each noise type masks most those frequencies that are dominant in its spectrum. Thus the shape of second-order MSFs are largely independent of the spectrum of their noise carrier, but first-order CSFs depend on the spectrum of an additive noise mask. This provides further evidence for the separation of first- and second-order vision and characterises second-order vision as a low pass mechanism.

Artifacts↗

PubMed2003

Motion sharpening and contrast: gain control precedes compressive non-linearity?

Blurred edges appear sharper in motion than when they are stationary. We (Vision Research 38 (1998) 2108) have previously shown how such distortions in perceived edge blur may be accounted for by a model which assumes that luminance contrast is encoded by a local contrast transducer whose response becomes progressively more compressive as speed increases. If the form of the transducer is fixed (independent of contrast) for a given speed, then a strong prediction of the model is that motion sharpening should increase with increasing contrast. We measured the sharpening of periodic patterns over a large range of contrasts, blur widths and speeds. The results indicate that whilst sharpening increases with speed it is practically invariant with contrast. The contrast invariance of motion sharpening is not explained by an early, static compressive non-linearity alone. However, several alternative explanations are also inconsistent with these results. We show that if a dynamic contrast gain control precedes the static non-linear transducer then motion sharpening, its speed dependence, and its invariance with contrast, can be predicted with reasonable accuracy.

Contrast Sensitivity↗

PubMed2002

Seeing blur: 'motion sharpening' without motion.

It is widely supposed that things tend to look blurred when they are moving fast. Previous work has shown that this is true for sharp edges but, paradoxically, blurred edges look sharper when they are moving than when stationary. This is 'motion sharpening'. We show that blurred edges also look up to 50% sharper when they are presented briefly (8-24 ms) than at longer durations (100-500 ms) without motion. This argues strongly against high-level models of sharpening based specifically on compensation for motion blur. It also argues against a recent, low-level, linear filter model that requires motion to produce sharpening. No linear filter model can explain our finding that sharpening was similar for sinusoidal and non-sinusoidal gratings, since linear filters can never distort sine waves. We also conclude that the idea of a 'default' assumption of sharpness is not supported by experimental evidence. A possible source of sharpening is a nonlinearity in the contrast response of early visual mechanisms to fast or transient temporal changes, perhaps based on the magnocellular (M-cell) pathway. Our finding that sharpening is not diminished at low contrast sets strong constraints on the nature of the nonlinearity.

Humans↗

PubMed2002

Neural adjustments to image blur.

Blur is an intrinsic feature of retinal images that varies widely across images and observers, yet the world still typically appears 'in focus'. Here we examine the putative role of neural adaptation in the human perception of image focus by measuring how blur judgments depended on the state of adaptation. Exposure to unfocused images has previously been shown to influence acuity and contrast sensitivity, and here we show that adaptation can also profoundly affect the actual perception of image focus.

Adaptation, Physiological↗

PubMed2002

Shading and texture: separate information channels with a common adaptation mechanism?

We outline a scheme for the way in which early vision may handle information about shading (luminance modulation, LM) and texture (contrast modulation, CM). Previous work on the detection of gratings has found no sub-threshold summation, and no cross-adaptation, between LM and CM patterns. This strongly implied separate channels for the detection of LM and CM structure. However, we now report experiments in which adapting to LM (or CM) gratings creates tilt aftereffects of similar magnitude on both LM and CM test gratings, and reduces the perceived strength (modulation depth) of LM and CM gratings to a similar extent. This transfer of aftereffects between LM and CM might suggest a second stage of processing at which LM and CM information is integrated. The nature of this integration, however, is unclear and several simple predictions are not fulfilled. Firstly, one might expect the integration stage to lose identity information about whether the pattern was LM or CM. We show instead that the identity of barely detectable LM and CM patterns is not lost. Secondly, when LM and CM gratings are combined in-phase or out-of-phase we find no evidence for cancellation, nor for 'phase-blindness'. These results suggest that information about LM and CM is not pooled or merged--shading is not confused with texture variation. We suggest that LM and CM signals are carried by separate channels, but they share a common adaptation mechanism that accounts for the almost complete transfer of perceptual aftereffects.

Adaptation, Ocular↗