Biomedical subjects

S Sabina Wolfson

Publications and source records attributed to S Sabina Wolfson.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Contrast-response functions for multifocal visual evoked potentials: a test of a model relating V1 activity to multifocal visual evoked potentials activity.

The multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) is largely generated in V1. To relate the electrical activity recorded from humans to recordings from single cells in nonhuman primate (V1) cortex, contrast-response functions for the human mfVEP were compared to predictions from a model of V1 activity (D. J. Heeger, A. C. Huk, W. S. Geisler, & D. G. Albrecht, 2000) based upon single-cell recordings from monkey V1 (e.g., D. G. Albrecht, 1995; D. G. Albrecht, W. S. Geisler, R. A. Frazor, & A. M. Crane, 2002; D. G. Albrecht & D. B. Hamilton, 1982; W. S. Geisler & D. G. Albrecht, 1997). A second purpose was to fully articulate the assumptions of this model to better understand the implications of this comparison. Finally, as the third purpose, one of these assumptions was tested. Monocular mfVEPs were obtained from normal subjects with a contrast-reversing dartboard pattern. The display contained 16 sectors each with a checkerboard. Both the sectors and the checks were scaled approximately for cortical magnification. In Experiment 1, there were 64 checks per sector. The contrast-response functions were fitted well up to 40% contrast by the theoretical population curve for V1 neurons; there was a systematic deviation for higher contrasts. The model, as articulated here, predicts that the contrast-response function should be the same and independent of the size of the elements in the display. Varying the size of the elements by varying the viewing distance in Experiment 2 produced similar results to those in Experiment 1. In Experiment 3, the viewing distance and sector size were held constant, but the size of the elements (and therefore the number of checks per sector) was varied. Changing check size by a factor of 16 had relatively little effect on the contrast-response function. In general, the mfVEP results were consistent with the model based upon the V1 neuron population. However, two aspects of the results require further exploration. First, there was a systematic deviation from the model's contrast-response function for higher contrasts. This deviation suggests that one or more of the model's assumptions may be violated. Second, the latency of the mfVEP changed far less than expected based upon single-cell data.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

Element-arrangement textures in multiple objective tasks.

In his long years of studying visual perception, Jacob Beck made many contributions. This article is a short review of one line of his research--that we shared in--and then a presentation of some results from on-going research down the same line. In the 1980s Beck and his colleagues introduced a new kind of visual stimulus: element-arrangement texture patterns. A series of studies with these patterns has shown that a model containing spatial-frequency and orientation-selective channels can explain many aspects of texture perception as long as two kinds of nonlinear processes are also included; the published studies are briefly summarized. The new results come from multiple objective tasks requiring the observer to make simple discriminations between second-order element-arrangement textures. Results with the objective tasks replicate previously published results using subjective ratings, and the use of the objective tasks allows us to explore several more fine-grained questions about complex (second-order) channels and normalization.

Contrast Sensitivity↗

PubMed2004

Is there opponent-orientation coding in the second-order channels of pattern vision?

Is there opponency between orientation-selective processes in pattern perception, analogous to opponency between color mechanisms? Here we concentrate on possible opponency in second-order channels. We compare several possible second-order structures: SIGN-opponent-only channels in which there is no opponency between orientations (also called complex channels or filter-rectify-filter mechanisms); three structures we group under the name ORIENTATION-opponent; and finally BOTH-opponent channels which combine features of both SIGN-opponent-only and ORIENTATION-opponent channels but lead to predictions that are distinct from either of theirs. We measured observers' ability to segregate textures composed of checkerboard and striped arrangements of vertical and horizontal Gabor grating patches. The observers' performance was compared to model predictions from the alternative opponent structures. The experimental results are consistent with SIGN-opponent-only channels. The results rule out the ORIENTATION-opponent and BOTH-opponent structures. Further, when the models were expanded to include a contrast gain-control (inhibition among channels in a normalization network) the SIGN-opponent-only model was also able to explain a contrast-dependent effect we found, thus providing another piece of evidence that such normalization is an important process in human texture perception.

Adult↗