Binocular brightness combinations: Additive and nonadditive aspects

Weert, C.M.M. de; Levelt, Willem J. M.

doi:10.3758/bf03199301

Cited by 63 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also studied in psychophysics is how intensity summates when, for example, signals are administered independently to the two ears (Falmagne, 1976;Falmagne, Iverson, & Marcovici, 1979;Gigerenzer & Strube, 1983;Levelt et al, 1972;Schneider, 1988;Steingrimsson & Luce, 2005a, 2005b or the two eyes (Bolanowski, 1987;Bourassa & Rule, 1994;Cohn & Lasley, 1976;Curtis & Rule, 1978;de Silva & Bartley, 1930;de Weert & Levelt, 1974;Ding & Sperling, 2006;Engel, 1969;Grossberg & Kelly, 1999;Irtel, 1998;Levelt, 1965;J. C. Stevens, 1967) and how the two modalities compare (Lehky, 1983;Wade & Ono, 2005).…”

Section: Appendix B Historical Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating a model of global psychophysical judgments for brightness: I. Behavioral properties of summations and productions

Steingrimsson

2009

Attention, Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

) proposed psychophysical theory of loudness and found it substantially supported. The aim of the present research is to begin an extension of this research to brightness. Luce's (2002Luce's ( , 2004 theory deals with the global percept of subjective intensity, in which there is a psychophysical function that maps pairs of physical intensities onto positive real numbers and represents, in an explicit mathematical way, subjective summation and a form of ratio production. These representations derive from a number of behavioral properties, including certain plausible background assumptions. In three experiments involving the subjective perception of luminance, brightness, the key behavioral properties of summation over the two eyes, and a form of generalized ratio production are empirically evaluated. Considerable support is reported for particular forms of separately for summations and ratio productions.

show abstract

Section: Appendix B Historical Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating a model of global psychophysical judgments for brightness: I. Behavioral properties of summations and productions

Steingrimsson

2009

Attention, Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It fails to predict the phenomena associated with Fechner's paradox and the deviations from exact quadratic summation. Two classes of interactive models-weighted summation (de Weert & Levelt, 1974;Engel, 1967Engel, , 1969Engel, , 1970Levelt, 1965)and vector summation (Cohn & Lasley, 1976;Curtis & Rule, 1978)-have been applied to the problem of Fechner's paradox in binocular luminance summation.…”

Section: Models Of Binocular Combinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Each weighting coefficient depends on some property of the stimulation to both eyes, and possibly on an ocular dominance factor, thereby accounting for the interactive nature of these models. In one example of weighted summation, the centroid model (Schrodinger, 1926;de Weert & Levelt, 1974), weights are determined by the relative monocular target brightnesses and the parameter k is 1:…”

Section: Models Of Binocular Combinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Binocular interactions in suprathreshold contrast perception

Legge

Rubin

1981

Perception & Psychophysics

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Suprathreshold binocular contrast interactions were studied psychophysically. A split-screen CRT display was used to present separate sine-wave gratings to the observer's left and right eyes. The method of constant stimuli and a modified method of adjustment were used to find sets of binocular test patterns that matched a given binocular standard. Test patterns consisted of the simultaneous presentation of sine-wave gratings that differed in contrast to the left and right eyes. Standard patterns consisted of identical sine-wave gratings presented to the two eyes, and had the same spatial frequency as the test patterns. Binocular contrast matching functions were obtained for several standard contrasts at 1 and 8 c/deg. Binocular matching functions were obtained for luminance increments as well. The binocular contrast matching functions departed from a simple binocular averaging rule. and behaved as if the eye receiving the higher contrast disproportionately dominated the binocular contrast percept. Departures from the binocular averaging rule were slightly greater for higher standard contrasts. Spatial frequency had little effect, and the luminance increment matching functions also departed from the binocular averaging rule. There was evidence for a contrast version of Fechner's paradox and for substantial individual differences in a form of ocular dominance. In a further experiment, additivity of suprathreshold binocular contrast summation was examined by testing the double-cancellation condition. We found no systematic violations of additivity at 1 and 8 c/deg. Models of suprathreshold binocular contrast summation were examined.How do the two eyes interact in the perception of contrast? Stereopsis is one form of interaction. Binocular summation is another. This paper is concerned with the latter.The term binocularsummation is used generically to refer to any visual process by which inputs to the two eyes are combined in detection, recognition, or magnitude judgments. The phrase does not necessarily imply simple addition as the means of combination, although some models of binocular summation include forms of additivity. Over the years, there have been many studies of binocular summation in the detection of luminous stimuli. It is well established that binocular thresholds for the detection of spots of light are lower than monocular thresholds. Pirenne (1943) concluded that binocular summation at threshold was no more than would be expected if a signal were detected when it exceeded the threshold of either of two independent detectors. He termed this form of binocular sum-

show abstract

“…Another way of thinking about the suprathreshold process is to see it as weighted averaging (c.f. Hering's law of complementary shares; de Weert & Levelt, 1974), where the relative weights are a functionofrelativecontrastbetweentheeyes. Thus the initial binocular response binsum (Eq.1)canbere-expressedas:…”

Section: Weighted Averaging and Adding: The Best Ofbothworldsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Binocular interaction: contrast matching and contrast discrimination are predicted by the same model

Baker¹,

Meese²,

Georgeson³

2007

Spatial Vis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do signals from the 2 eyes combine and interact? Our recent work has challenged earlier schemes in which monocular contrast signals are subject to square-law transduction followed by summation across eyes and binocular gain control. Much more successful was a new 'two-stage' modelinwhichtheinitialtransducerwasalmostlinearandcontrastgaincontroloccurredbothpreand post binocular summation. Here we extend that work by: (i) exploring the two-dimensional stimulus space (defined by left-and right-eye contrasts) more thoroughly, and (ii) performing contrast discrimination and contrast matching tasks for the same stimuli. Twenty-five base-stimuli made from 1 c/deg patches of horizontal grating, were defined by the factorial combination of 5 contrasts for the left eye (0.3-32%) with five contrasts for the right eye (0.3-32%). Other than in contrast,thegratingsinthetwoeyeswereidentical.Ina2IFCdiscriminationtask,thebase-stimuli weremasks(pedestals),wherethecontrastincrementwaspresentedtooneeyeonly.Inamatching task,thebase-stimuliwerestandardstowhichobserversmatchedthecontrastofeitheramonocular orbinoculartestgrating.Inthemodel,discriminationdependsonthelocalgradientoftheobserver's internalcontrast-responsefunction,whilematchingequatesthemagnitude(ratherthangradient)of responsetothetestandstandard.Withallmodelparametersfixedbypreviouswork,thetwo-stage model successfully predicted both the discrimination and the matching data and was much more successful than linear or quadratic binocular summation models. These results show that performance measures and perception (contrast discrimination and contrast matching) can be understoodinthesametheoreticalframeworkforbinocularcontrastvision.

show abstract

Binocular brightness combinations: Additive and nonadditive aspects

Cited by 63 publications

References 12 publications

Evaluating a model of global psychophysical judgments for brightness: I. Behavioral properties of summations and productions

Evaluating a model of global psychophysical judgments for brightness: I. Behavioral properties of summations and productions

Binocular interactions in suprathreshold contrast perception

Binocular interaction: contrast matching and contrast discrimination are predicted by the same model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About