PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 7433985

Specific reading disability: differences in contrast sensitivity as a function of spatial frequency.

W J Lovegrove·A Bowling·D Badcock·M Blackwood
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Contrast thresholds for sine-wave gratings of spatial frequencies of 2, 4, 12, and 16 cycles per degree were determined for normal and disabled readers at a range of stimulus durations. Normal readers demonstrated monotonically decreasing sensitivity with increasing spatial frequency at exposure durations between 40 and 100 milliseconds. At exposure durations of 150 to 1000 milliseconds, they showed peak sensitivity at 4 cycles per degree. In comparison, disabled readers showed monotonically decreasing sensitivity with increasing spatial frequency at all stimulus durations. The difference in sensitivity pattern across spatial frequencies was greatest at stimulus durations approximately equal to fixation durations during reading.

Explore related subjects

AfterimageDyslexiaHumansSpace PerceptionTime FactorsVisual PerceptionJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

W J Lovegrove, A Bowling, D Badcock, M Blackwood. 1980. Specific reading disability: differences in contrast sensitivity as a function of spatial frequency.. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7433985

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1995

A comparison of temporal integration in children with a specific reading disability and normal readers.

Previous research has suggested that whereas some techniques show that subjects with a specific reading disability (SRD) have greater visible persistence than controls, a temporal integration of form technique does not. It has been suggested that the failure of the temporal integration task to show a difference results from the spatial separation between stimuli used in the technique. In this study SRD and control subjects were compared on a new version of a temporal integration task, under two conditions varying the spatial separation of elements in the display. It was predicted that there would be no difference between groups when spatial separation was large, but that the SRD subjects would show greater visible persistence at small separations. Neither prediction was confirmed, denying previous explanations of why the temporal integration task does not discriminate between groups. Analysis of errors showed that the result was not due to inattention nor to a general deficit on the part of the SRD subjects.

Afterimage↗
PubMed1995

A target in real motion appears blurred in the absence of other proximal moving targets.

For exposure durations longer than about 40 msec, a field of dots in sampled motion has been reported to appear less smeared than predicted from the visual persistence of static displays. This reduction of perceived smear has been attributed to a motion "deblurring" mechanism. However, it has been long recognized that an isolated target moving continuously in a dark field appears to be extensively smeared. To reconcile these apparently contradictory observations, we investigated the effect of dot density on the extent of perceived smear for a single moving dot and for fields of dots with densities ranging from 0.75 to 7.5 dots/deg2. Bright targets were presented in continuous motion against a photopically illuminated background field. The results reconcile previous conflicting observations by showing that the length of perceived smear decreases systematically with dot density for exposure durations longer than about 50 msec. In three additional experiments, we arranged the spatial configuration of the targets to evaluate whether motion deblurring results primarily from a motion compensation mechanism (such as integration within the spatiotemporally oriented receptive fields of putative motion mechanisms) or from inhibition exerted by spatiotemporally adjacent targets. The results show that the activation of motion mechanisms is not a sufficient condition for motion deblurring and that the reduction of perceived smear requires the presence of spatiotemporally adjacent targets. Taken together, these findings suggest that motion deblurring results primarily from masking exerted by spatiotemporally proximal targets.

Afterimage↗