A theory of depression and enhancement in the brightness response.

Diamond, A. Leonard

doi:10.1037/h0045342

Cited by 44 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus the perception of simultaneous contrast may rely on the properties of early center–surround receptive fields and lateral inhibitory processes (Diamond, 1960; Thomas, 1970). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of stimulus width on simultaneous contrast

Shi

Cui

Troncoso

et al. 2013

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perceived brightness of a stimulus depends on the background against which the stimulus is set, a phenomenon known as simultaneous contrast. For instance, the same gray stimulus can look light against a black background or dark against a white background. Here we quantified the perceptual strength of simultaneous contrast as a function of stimulus width. Previous studies have reported that wider stimuli result in weaker simultaneous contrast, whereas narrower stimuli result in stronger simultaneous contrast. However, no previous research has quantified this relationship. Our results show a logarithmic relationship between stimulus width and perceived brightness. This relationship is well matched by the normalized output of a Difference-of-Gaussians (DOG) filter applied to stimuli of varied widths.

show abstract

“…Thus the perception of simultaneous contrast may rely on the properties of early center–surround receptive fields and lateral inhibitory processes (Diamond, 1960; Thomas, 1970). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of stimulus width on simultaneous contrast

Shi

Cui

Troncoso

et al. 2013

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to the recent experiments (Barlow, 1953;Hartline, 1956 and on the brightness response of the retina these interactions occur among the individual elements in the retina; e.g., among rods or cones, among bipolars, or among ganglion cells. the inducing on-fibers, (b) other on-fibers, of the test field, and (c) the spontaneously discharging off-fibers (Diamond , 1960). Then, prior to the analysis of the present results in terms of the relationship between constancy and contrast, it seems necessary to compare the inhibitory effect of IFZ on the test field in Condition A with that in Condition B.…”

Section: Apparatus and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Co-Existent Stimuli Other Than Test Stimulus on Brightness Constancy

Kozaki

1965

Jpn. Psychol. Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…in Graham, 1934; or Woodworth, 1938). A recent review has been made by Diamond (1960).If we suppose that the retinal component is important, it might be expected that the amount of contrast would be different inside and outside the foveal area, since there are so many well known structural and functional differences between the fovea and the periphery. Recent electro-physiological work on lateral inhibition in the retina (Barlow, FitzHugh and Kuffler, 1957 ;Wiesel, 1960 ;Barlow, 1953 ;Kuffler, 1953) suggests that there are changes in the size of the receptive field (both excitatory and inhibitory parts) and in the amount of inhibition, as we go from the centre towards the periphery.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Size of Test Patch and Simultaneous Contrast

Burgh

Grindley

1962

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments were done t o find the effect on simultaneous brightness contrast of placing test patches in, as against outside, the fovea. When the display was magnified SO that the test patches were outside the fovea no statistically significant effect was found. Very short exposures, to eliminate eye movements, did not appear to reduce contrast. INTRODUCTIONIt has usually been held that the familiar phenomenon of simultaneous contrast is partly central and partly peripheral (i.e. in this context, retinal) in origin. Reviews of the earlier literature are readily available (eg. in Graham, 1934; or Woodworth, 1938). A recent review has been made by Diamond (1960).If we suppose that the retinal component is important, it might be expected that the amount of contrast would be different inside and outside the foveal area, since there are so many well known structural and functional differences between the fovea and the periphery. Recent electro-physiological work on lateral inhibition in the retina (Barlow, FitzHugh and Kuffler, 1957 ;Wiesel, 1960 ;Barlow, 1953 ;Kuffler, 1953) suggests that there are changes in the size of the receptive field (both excitatory and inhibitory parts) and in the amount of inhibition, as we go from the centre towards the periphery. Other experiments (Hubel and Wiesel, 1959, 1960a, 1960b have demonstrated a somewhat similar organization at higher levels in the central nervous system, and suggest a highly complex interaction of retinal and central factors. These experiments do not yet, however, give a clear indication of the kind of change to be expected in simultaneous contrast with variation of retinal area in the human being.I n this paper we are discussing the effect of magnifying the contrast-inducing display, so as to throw the test patches of Figure I wholly within or wholly outside the fovea, as opposed to viewing peripherally a display of constant size. The effect of very short exposures, so as to preclude eye-movements, is also considered.

show abstract

A theory of depression and enhancement in the brightness response.

Cited by 44 publications

References 18 publications

Effect of stimulus width on simultaneous contrast

Effect of stimulus width on simultaneous contrast

The Effect of Co-Existent Stimuli Other Than Test Stimulus on Brightness Constancy

Size of Test Patch and Simultaneous Contrast

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About