Channel selection with non-white-noise masks

Journal of the Optical Society of America A: Optics and Image Science, and Vision

Volumn 17, Issue 6, 2000, Pages 986-993

  Solomon, Joshua A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BANDWIDTH; MEASUREMENT ERRORS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO; WHITE NOISE;

LOW-PASS NOISE;

DIFFRACTION GRATINGS;

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; HUMAN; MALE; PERCEPTION; PERCEPTIVE THRESHOLD; PHYSIOLOGY; VISION;

HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; SENSORY THRESHOLDS; VISION;

EID: 0034203899     PISSN: 10847529     EISSN: 15208532     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1364/JOSAA.17.000986     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. D. G. Pelli, “Effects of visual noise,” Ph.D. dissertation (University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, 1981).
2. G. B. Henning, B. G. Hertz, and J. L. Hinton, “Effects of different hypothetical detection mechanisms on the shape of spatial-frequency filters inferred from masking experiments: I. Noise masks,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 71, 574-581 (1981).
3. J. A. Solomon and D. G. Pelli, “The visual filter mediating letter identification,” Nature 369, 395-397 (1994).
4. M. E. Perkins and M. S. Landy, “Nonadditivity of masking by narrow-band noises,” Vision Res. 31, 1053-1065 (1991).
5. M. A. Losada and K. T. Mullen, “Color and luminance spatial tuning estimated by noise masking in the absence of off-frequency looking,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 12, 250-260 (1995).
6. D. G. Pelli, “Channel properties revealed by noise masking,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. Suppl. 19, 44A (1980).
7. A. E. Burgess, C. Li, and C. K. Abbey, “Visual signal detect-ability with two noise components: Anomalous masking effects,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 14, 2420-2442 (1997).
8. D. G. Pelli and L. Zhang, “Accurate control of contrast on microcomputer displays,” Vision Res. 31, 1337-1350 (1991).
9. A. B. Watson and J. A. Solomon, “Psychophysica: Mathematica notebooks for psychophysical experiments,” Spatial Vis. 10, 447-466 (1997).
10. A. B. Watson and D. G. Pelli, “QUEST: A Bayesian adaptive psychometric method,” Percept. Psychophys. 33, 113-120 (1983).
11. 0is the expected or mean luminance. Each pixel’s power is its squared contrast. Note: Because target and mask are presented on alternate frames, the maximum power any pixel can have is 0.25.
12. R. D. Patterson, “Auditory filter shapes derived with noise stimuli,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 59, 640-654 (1976).
13. J. Majaj, D. G. Pelli, P. Kurshan, and M. Palomares, New York University, Department of Psychology, 6 Washington Place, New York, N.Y. 10003-6634 (personal communication, December 1998).
14. H. R. Wilson, D. K. McFarlane, and G. C. Phillips, “Spatial-frequency tuning of orientation selective units estimated by oblique masking,” Vision Res. 23, 873-882 (1983).
15. C. F. Stromeyer and B. Julesz, “Spatial-frequency masking in vision: Critical bands and spread of masking,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 62, 1221-1232 (1972).
16. R. L. De Valois, D. G. Albrecht, and L. G. Thorell, “Spatial frequency selectivity of cells in Macaque visual cortex,” Vision Res. 22, 545-559 (1982).
17. J. M. Valeton and A. B. Watson, “Contrast detection does not have a local spatial scale,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. 31, 428 (1990).
18. When the axes in Fig. 7(a) are rotated so that the dashed line (which intersects the regression line where it intersects the mean threshold elevation) becomes the abscissa, the slope of the data points remains significant (p < 0.04). For Figs. 7(b) and 7(c) the p values are approximately 0.5 and 0.4, respectively.
19. J. Yao, “Predicting human performance by model observers,” Ph.D. dissertation (University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz., 1995).
20. S. Wolfram, The Mathematica Book, 3rd ed. (Wolfram Media/Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996).
21. D. G. Pelli, “The quantum efficiency of vision,” in Vision: Coding and Efficiency, C. B. Blakemore, ed. (Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990).
22. istill does not improve the fit to subject MAL’s data, but it does reduce the RMS error of the fit to subject MJS’s data by 1%.