A narrow bar or line (width around 1 arcmin) between two fields of which the luminances are sinusoidally and in counterphase modulated in time appears to make an oscillatory movement. It is possible to annihilate this illusory movement with a real movement and thus to analyze this phenomenon quantitatively. Confirming previous studies, the amount of illusory movement (amplitude typically 10 arcsec) was proportional to the modulation depth of the fields and inversely proportional to the line width and the line contrast. The amount of illusory movement increased with defocus, a lower mean luminance, and eccentricity. The experimental results could be explained by a model that includes a linear low-pass spatial filter. For a Gaussian spatial filter, the standard deviation as derived from the experimental results was 1.1 arcmin (1.0-1.3 arcmin) (median with range of four observers) for well-focused, photopic, foveal viewing. We explored various criteria for line localization in the model (extremes and zero-crossings of Gaussian derivatives).

In glaucoma, the density of retinal ganglion cells is reduced. It is largely unknown how this influences retinal information processing. An increase in spatial summation and a decrease in contrast gain control and contrast adaptation have been reported. A decrease in lateral inhibition might also arise. This could result in a larger than expected response to some stimuli, which could mask ganglion cell loss on functional testing (structure-function discrepancy). The aim of this study was to compare lateral inhibition between glaucoma patients and healthy subjects; we used a case-control design. Cases (n = 18) were selected to have advanced visual field loss in combination with a normal visual acuity. Controls (n = 50) were not allowed to have symptoms or signs of any eye disease. Lateral inhibition was measured psychophysically on a computer screen, with (1) a modified illusory movement experiment and (2) a contrast sensitivity (CS) test. Illusory movement was quantified by nulling it with a real movement; measure of lateral inhibition was the amount of illusory movement. CS was measured at 1 and 4 cycles per degree (cpd); measure of lateral inhibition was the difference between log CS at 4 and 1 cpd. Both measures were compared between cases and controls; analyses were adjusted for age and gender. There was no difference between cases and controls for these two measures of lateral inhibition (p = 0.58 for illusory movement; p = 0.20 for CS). The movement threshold was higher in cases than in controls (p = 0.008) and log CS was lower, at both 1 (-0.20; p = 0.008) and 4 (-0.28; p = 0.001) cpd. Our results indicate that spatially antagonistic mechanisms are not specifically affected in glaucoma, at least not in the intact center of a severely damaged visual field. This suggests that the structure-function discrepancy in glaucoma is not related to a decrease in lateral inhibition.

Speech recognition was measured in 24 normal-hearing subjects for unprocessed speech and for speech processed by a cochlear implant Advanced Combination Encoder (ACE) coding strategy in quiet and at various signal-to noise ratios (SNRs). All signals were low- or high-pass filtered to avoid ceiling effects. Surprisingly, speech recognition performance plateaus at approximately 22 dB SNR for both speech types, implying that ACE processing has no effect on the upper limit of the effective SNR range. Speech recognition improved significantly above 15 dB SNR, suggesting that the upper limit used in the Speech Intelligibility Index should be reconsidered.