PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 3598756

Temporal impulse responses from flicker sensitivities.

D G Stork·D S Falk
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We derive visual temporal impulse response functions from the large-field sinusoidal flicker sensitivity measurements made at several luminances by Kelly [J. Opt. Soc. Am. 51, 422 (1961)]. To this end we recognize response function causality and use Kramers-Krönig relations to reconstruct the (unmeasured) temporal phase spectrum and hence also the impulse response functions. At high luminances our derived functions are triphasic, while at low luminances they are biphasic. These functions are model independent, rely on no free parameters, and are consistent with certain theoretical model-dependent functions as well as psychophysical measurements by others.

Explore related subjects

Flicker FusionHumansMathematicsModels, PsychologicalTime FactorsJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D G Stork, D S Falk. 1987. Temporal impulse responses from flicker sensitivities.. https://doi.org/10.1364/josaa.4.001130

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1995

The spatiotemporal range of inhibitory interaction in flicker detection.

The flicker thresholds of luminous bars were measured as a function of the spatial and/or temporal separation of two flickering stimuli. Each of the bars had an intensity profile of one-half cycle of a sinusoidal wave subtending 2.26 x 0.45 arc deg and each bar was presented twice at two positions with a duration of 10 msec. The spatial separation was defined as the distance between the adjacent flanks of two flickering stimuli, while the temporal separation was determined as the time-lag between the offset of the first flickering stimulus and the onset of the second. We found that the thresholds increased asymptotically with the spatial separation in such a way as to suggest that the spatial extent over which inhibitory interaction could be effective was as large as about 2 arc deg. We also found that the threshold gradually decreased with greater temporal separation; this indicated that the temporal proximity of successive stimuli effects less suppression on the temporal response. These two effects were seemingly additive. These findings suggest that the visual system involves not only local spatial interaction, but also a global mechanism capable of spreading inhibition over several local units after a delay of several msec.

Flicker Fusion↗
PubMed1993

Eccentricity and the Ferry-Porter law.

Is the flicker limit governed by the Ferry-Porter law or by some other law? We previously obtained strong evidence for the wide applicability of the Ferry-Porter law and for its variation with eccentricity [J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 7, 743 (1990)]. Raninen and others [Vision Res. 28, 785 (1988); 31, 1875 1875 (1991)] have questioned our analysis of the data and our conclusions. We show that their criticism of the Ferry-Porter law is based on specious analyses and that their own data support the Ferry-Porter formulation. We also provide further evidence that the slope of the Ferry-Porter function increases markedly with eccentricity, implying that the inherent temporal properties of the retina grow more rapid with distance from the fovea.

Flicker Fusion↗
PubMed1992

Counterphase dichoptic flicker is seen as its own second harmonic.

If a patternless field is modulated sinusoidally in time so that the luminance change in one eye is in counterphase to that in the other, the resulting flicker appears faster than if the modulation to both eyes has the same phase. If observers set the frequency and the amplitude of a comparison in-phase field so that it matches a neighbouring counterphase field, modulated at, say, 2.5 x its threshold, they set the frequency to twice the counterphase frequency, and the amplitude to a value that is, for a given frequency, a constant ratio of the modulation of the counterphase field. Counterphase stimulation thus appears to cause an internal second-harmonic signal. However, it is not possible to cancel this by adding a second harmonic component to the stimulus.

Flicker Fusion↗