Central and Peripheral Normal Contrast Sensitivity for Static and Dynamic Sinusoidal Gratings

Abstract

Contrast sensitivity for moving and stationary sine grating patterns was determined in central and peripheral parts of the visual field. The method was primarily developed as a possible screening procedure for visual defects in glaucoma. Contrast sensitivity to moving patterns seemed maximal both in central and in 10 degrees of eccentric viewing for square wave reversals of temporal frequencies 0.5-5 Hz. We selected 2Hz for the clinical procedure. Further, we have determined normal central and peripheral contrast sensitivity in 10 subjects 61-71 years-old, to serve as a basis for the glaucoma studies. We used this age group since glaucoma mainly affects elderly people. We confirmed that contrast sensitivity was higher for dynamic than for static presentation of gratings of low spatial frequencies (below 1 c/d) both centrally and peripherally. For patterns of medium or high spatial frequencies, dynamic and static stimuli were equally detectable. The absolute level of contrast sensitivity was higher centrally than peripherally in the interval 0.3-4 c/d. The lower visual hemifield exhibited greater sensitivity, for both static and dynamic gratings, than the upper one.

Modulating the global orientation bias of the visual system changes population receptive field elongations

“…Importantly, vertical differences in the perception of oriented gratings are pronounced in a spatial frequency range that includes the 1.5 c/deg used for the current adapter stimulus (Lundh et al, 1983;Rijsdijk et al, 1980), indicating that an increased number of neural populations within the upper visual field were not sufficiently adapted during the current experiment in order to elicit a measurable difference in pRF shape. Interestingly, those same detection advantages for oriented gratings tend to be found in the left compared to the right hemifield (Christman, Kitterle, & Hellige, 1991;Maria Fatima Silva et al, 2008).…”

“…However, a lack of modulatory effects of the orientation stimulus in the upper visual field is most likely a reflection of a more elementary perceptual lower visual field advantage of the early visual system (Fred H. Previc, 1990). A lower contrast threshold for the detection (Cameron, Talgar, & Carrasco, M., 2001;Lundh, Lennerstrand, & Derefeldt, 1983;Rijsdijk, Kroon, & van der Wildt, 1980;Maria Fatima Silva et al, 2008;Maria Fátima Silva et al, 2010) and discrimination (Cameron, Tai, & Carrasco, 2002;Carrasco, Williams, & Yeshurun, 2002) for oriented gratings presented within the lower visual field has been described. This perceptual advantage is prevalent in the discrimination of a variety of other stimulus features like luminance, color, and motion (Gibson, 1966;Levine & McAnany, 2005) as well as in a letter recognition task (Mackeben, 1999).…”

Photopic and scotopic spatiotemporal tuning of adult zebrafish vision

“…Compared with rods, cones are less sensitive to light but work best and most rapidly under photopic conditions due to their rapid receptor recovery following exposure to bright light (Wang and Kefalov, 2011). Accordingly, Lundh et al (1983) showed that the density of cone photoreceptors is responsible for the high CS of humans under photopic conditions. Therefore, humans share the abilities of night vision with mice and other nocturnal animals but their vision in bright light is much better than the one of mice and even of zebrafish.…”

Isoeccentric locations are not equivalent: The extent of the vertical meridian asymmetry

“…The shape of the visual performance field, with eccentricity held constant, is characterized by a Horizontal–Vertical Anisotropy (HVA), in which performance is better in the East 1 and West relative to the North and South, and a vertical meridian asymmetry (VMA), in which performance is better in the South than in the North. These performance fields emerge in contrast sensitivity and spatial resolution tasks (Altpeter, Mackeben, & Trauzettel-Klosinski, 2000; Anderson, Wilkinson, & Thibos, 1992; Cameron, Tai, & Carrasco, 2002; Carrasco, Talgar, & Cameron, 2001; Carrasco, Williams, & Yeshurun, 2002; Low, 1943a, 1943b; Lundh, Lennerstrand, & Derefeldt, 1983; Mackeben, 1999; Millodot & Lamont, 1974; Montaser-Kouhsari & Carrasco, 2009; Pointer & Hess, 1989; Pointer & Hess, 1990; Regan & Beverley, 1983; Rijsdijk, Kroon, & van der Wildt, 1980; Robson & Graham, 1981; Rovamo et al, 1982; Seiple et al, 2004; Silva et al, 2008; Silva et al, 2010; Skrandies, 1985; Talgar & Carrasco, 2002), as well as in visual search tasks (Carrasco, Giordano, & McElree, 2004; Chaikin, Corbin, & Volkmann, 1962; Kristjánsson & Sigurdardottir, 2008; Kröse & Julesz, 1989; Najemnik & Geisler, 2008, 2009; Pretorius & Hanekom, 2007; Rezec & Dobkins, 2004). Both the HVA and the VMA also exist in the rate of information accrual at isoeccentric locations: information accrual is faster along the horizontal than the vertical meridian, and it is faster along the lower than the upper vertical meridian (Carrasco, Giordano, & McElree, 2004).…”