How do we discriminate relative spatial phase?

D R Badcock

doi:10.1016/0042-6989(84)90017-8

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 6534007

How do we discriminate relative spatial phase?

D R Badcock

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Discrimination of the relative spatial phase of sinusoids is reformulated as a local contrast discrimination task. This provides a good account of performance with gratings composed of a fundamental and either its second or fourth harmonic. The contrast of the compounds (including a fundamental and its third harmonic) are then varied, keeping the contrast ratio of the components constant, and it is found that performance improves with increasing contrast. The exponent of the power equation relating a base contrast measure to the contrast difference at threshold is derived (assuming the above reformulation to be valid). The average exponent (0.54) is in the range expected from contrast increment detection literature. The effect of contrast on performance is predicted very well. Phase per se does not need to be considered.

Explore related subjects

Discrimination, Psychological Female Form Perception Humans Male Models, Psychological Pattern Recognition, Visual Visual Acuity Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

D R Badcock. 1984. How do we discriminate relative spatial phase?. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(84)90017-8

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

A network of occipito-temporal face-sensitive areas besides the right middle fusiform gyrus is necessary for normal face processing.

Neuroimaging studies have identified at least two bilateral areas of the visual extrastriate cortex that respond more to pictures of faces than objects in normal human subjects in the middle fusiform gyrus [the 'fusiform face area' (FFA)] and, more posteriorly, in the inferior occipital cortex ['occipital face area' (OFA)], with a right hemisphere dominance. However, it is not yet clear how these regions interact which each other and whether they are all necessary for normal face perception. It has been proposed that the right hemisphere FFA acts as an isolated ('modular') processing system for faces or that this region receives its face-sensitive inputs from the OFA in a feedforward hierarchical model of face processing. To test these proposals, we report a detailed neuropsychological investigation combined with a neuroimaging study of a patient presenting a deficit restricted to face perception, consecutive to bilateral occipito-temporal lesions. Due to the asymmetry of the lesions, the left middle fusiform gyrus and the right inferior occipital cortex were damaged but the right middle fusiform gyrus was structurally intact. Using functional MRI, we disclosed a normal activation of the right FFA in response to faces in the patient despite the absence of any feedforward inputs from the right OFA, located in a damaged area of cortex. Together, these findings show that the integrity of the right OFA is necessary for normal face perception and suggest that the face-sensitive responses observed at this level in normal subjects may arise from feedback connections from the right FFA. In agreement with the current literature on the anatomical basis of prosopagnosia, it is suggested that the FFA and OFA in the right hemisphere and their re-entrant integration are necessary for normal face processing.

Discrimination, Psychological↗

PubMed2003

Oxford professor accused of discrimination over e-mail.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Discrimination, Psychological↗

PubMed2003

Numerosity discrimination in infants: evidence for two systems of representations.

Two experiments investigated numerosity discrimination in 6-month-old infants, comparing their performance on both large numbers (4 vs. 8 elements) and small numbers (2 vs. 4 elements) with both total filled area and total contour length controlled for. These studies provide the first direct comparison between discrimination of small and large numbers in infants with the same methodology, the same type of stimuli, and the same continuous variable controls. Results showed that infants succeeded in discriminating 4 from 8 elements but failed to discriminate 2 from 4 elements, providing evidence for the existence of two systems of number representations in infancy.

Discrimination, Psychological↗