The effects of glare and inhomogeneous visual fields on contrast detection in the context of driving

Abstract

An experiment was carried out to investigate how contrast threshold for target detection is affected by the presence of glare and by extraneous light sources using the method of ascending limits. The target was located at either a foveal or a peripheral (108 right) location, glare was adjacent to the foveal location, simulating the headlamps of an oncoming vehicle, and extraneous light sources were at either foveal or peripheral (108 right or left) locations. Contrast threshold for a foveal target without glare was affected mainly by the surrounding local luminance distribution. However, in the presence of glare and also for the peripheral target (both with and without glare) the global luminance distribution matters. Glare increased the contrast needed for detection of the foveal target, but this effect was reduced by the presence of extraneous light sources that were peripheral to the target. For peripheral targets, contrast threshold was also reduced by the presence of extraneous light at a non-target location and this effect was increased in the presence of glare. Glare equations tend to be based on tests using uniform, homogenous fields: these data indicate that, in the presence of extraneous light sources, the influence of glare is overestimated.

Calculation of Mesopic Luminance Using per Pixel S/P Ratios Measured with Digital Imaging

“…Thus, we could calculate the mesopic luminances in the right proportions and only to the retinal area where rod and cone cells coexist (Cursio et al 1990;Osterberg 1935;Watson 2014). To implement the photoreceptor density functions correctly, the current fixation point must be predicted (Cengiz et al 2013;Winter et al 2016aWinter et al , 2016b.…”

The effect of assuming static or dynamic gaze behaviour on the estimated background luminance of drivers

“…the luminance at and around a task point) influences visual performance, which is an estimate for adaptation. 10,[27][28][29][30] That assumption would make field sizes larger than 2° around an assumed static task point irrelevant.…”