PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 1766775

How does the visual system distinguish between illuminance and reflectance?

T Sohmiya·K Sohmiya
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The experiments in which the strengths of pattern and of fusion differing in kind from brightness were used as measures indicated that the visual system could distinguish between illuminance and reflectance. From this result and an observation of gray papers by a microscope, it is assumed that luminance has two aspects, one refers to the macroscopic density of photons and another to the proportion of the reflected microscopic areas to the absorbed microscopic areas so that brightness constancy occurs in relation to each of the patterns of the various sizes from a macroscopic pattern visible to the naked eye to a microscopic pattern not visible. It is also mentioned that the strength of fusion is rare but promising as a measure for analyzing brightness.

Explore related subjects

AttentionDiscrimination LearningDominance, CerebralHumansLightPattern Recognition, VisualPsychophysicsVision DisparityVisual PathwaysVisual PerceptionJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

T Sohmiya, K Sohmiya. 1991. How does the visual system distinguish between illuminance and reflectance?. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1991.73.2.479

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

A low glycaemic index breakfast cereal preferentially prevents children's cognitive performance from declining throughout the morning.

This study investigated whether the glycaemic index (GI) of breakfast cereal differentially affects children's attention and memory. Using a balanced cross-over design, on two consecutive mornings 64 children aged 6-11 years were given a high GI cereal and a low GI cereal in a counterbalanced order. They performed a series of computerised tests of attention and memory, once prior to breakfast and three times following breakfast at hourly intervals. The results indicate that children's performance declines throughout the morning and that this decline can be significantly reduced following the intake of a low GI cereal as compared with a high GI cereal on measures of accuracy of attention (M=-6.742 and -13.510, respectively, p<0.05) and secondary memory (M=-30.675 and -47.183, respectively, p<0.05).

Attention↗
PubMed2007

Inhibitory control test is a simple method to diagnose minimal hepatic encephalopathy and predict development of overt hepatic encephalopathy.

OBJECTIVES: To compare inhibitory control test (ICT), a simple/rapid test of attention, to a standard psychometric battery (SPT) to diagnose minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) and predict development of overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE) in cirrhotic patients. METHODS: Fifty nonalcoholic cirrhotics and 50 age/educational-status-matched controls were given ICT and SPT in the same sitting. Performance impaired beyond two standard deviations of controls was considered MHE in cirrhotics. ICT results (lure/target response and lures/person) were compared between controls and cirrhotics and within cirrhotics with/without MHE. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis was used to study ICT for MHE diagnosis. Twenty subjects were administered SPT and ICT twice to assess test-retest reliability. All cirrhotics were followed routinely for the development of OHE. RESULTS: Cirrhotics performed worse than controls on SPT and ICT. Using SPT, 39 cirrhotics had MHE. ICT was administered faster than SPT (15 vs 37 min). Cirrhotics with MHE had significantly higher lure (28%vs 3%) and lower target response (91%vs 96%) compared with those without MHE. Lure/person >5 had 90% sensitivity/specificity for MHE diagnosis. AUC for receiver-operating characteristic for lures alone was 95.8%. Lure and target responses were highly correlated (r= 0.9) between sessions showing high test-retest reliability. Five (10%) patients developed OHE on f/u of 26 +/- 10 months; all five had been diagnosed with MHE using ICT and SPT. None of the five patients with discordant results on SPT and ICT developed OHE. CONCLUSIONS: ICT has good sensitivity/specificity for MHE diagnosis, is reliable and is equivalent to SPT for predicting OHE development.

Attention↗