CONTRAST-MATCHING ANALYSIS OF GRATING INDUCTION AND SUPRATHRESHOLD CONTRAST PERCEPTION
CONTRAST-MATCHING ANALYSIS OF GRATING INDUCTION AND SUPRATHRESHOLD CONTRAST PERCEPTION
复制标题
DOI：
10.1364/josaa.11.000014
复制
发表时间：
1994-01-01
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
BLAKESLEE, B
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
MCCOURT, ME;BLAKESLEE, B
通过对比度匹配程序，对两名观察者评估了感应光栅[Vision Res. 22，119（1982）]对位于0.5度测试视野内的标准光栅的感知对比度的影响。五个级别的感应光栅对比度，C-I，范围从0.0到0.75。将匹配对比度C-M与标准光栅对比度C-S相关的函数是在标准对比度范围内的四个感应光栅对比度水平下获得的，-0.90小于或等于C-S小于或等于+0.90，其中符号表示标准相对于感应光栅的空间相位。匹配函数具有由两个拐点分开的三个不同的分支;拐点之间的分支表示高对比度增益的区域。另一个措施，取消对比度，在四个级别的诱导对比度的变化C-S，直到测试场出现空间均匀。根据抵消对比度C-C测量的感应幅度与C-I近似线性地增长，使得C-C = 0.819（C-I）。从均匀测试场获得的匹配对比度数据确定的感应幅度（即，对于C-S = 0.0的C-M）作为感应光栅对比度的减速函数增长，使得C-M = 0.308（C-I）（1.8）/（[C-I]（1.8）+0.096），对于大于或等于0.50的C-I，在大约0.275的对比度处有效地渐近线。当匹配和标准对比度的绝对值之间的差I C-M I-I C-S I相对于标准与感应光栅对比度的比率C-S/C-I作图时，所得函数通常是双相的，揭示了两个对比度过匹配的区域（即，\C-M\ > \C-S\）和对比度欠匹配，\C-M\ < \C-S\。提出了一个四参数模型，该模型解释了原始匹配函数的许多特征，并且在数学上类似于Semmelroth对亮度匹配中脆化效应的解释[J. Opt. Soc. Am，60，1685（1970）]。该模型将匹配对比度C-M描述为输入为C-S和C-S - C-I的两个非线性对比度响应函数的加权和。结果进行了讨论相对于脆化效应（感知对比度的对比度适应的效果）和亮度和对比度域视觉处理的相似性和差异。
The effect that induced gratings [Vision Res. 22, 119 (1982)] exert on the perceived contrast of standard gratings situated within a 0.5 degrees test field was assessed for two observers by a contrast-matching procedure. Five levels of inducing-grating contrast, C-I, ranged from 0.0 to 0.75. Functions relating matching contrast, C-M, to standard-grating contrast, C-S, were obtained at four levels of inducing-grating contrast across a range of standard contrasts, -0.90 less than or equal to C-S less than or equal to +0.90, where the sign denotes the spatial phase of the standard relative to the inducing grating. The matching functions possessed three distinct limbs separated by two inflection points; the limb between the inflection points represents a region of high contrast gain. Another measure, canceling contrast, was obtained at the four levels of inducing contrast by variation of C-S until the test field appeared spatially homogeneous. Induction magnitude measured in terms of canceling contrast, C-C, grew approximately linearly with C-I, such that C-C = 0.819 (C-I). Induction magnitude determined from matching-contrast data obtained for homogeneous test fields (i.e., C-M for C-S = 0.0) grew as a decelerating function of inducing-grating contrast, such that C-M = 0.308(C-I)(1.8)/([C-I](1.8) + 0.096), effectively asymptoting at a contrast of approximately 0.275 for C-I greater than or equal to 0.50. When the difference between the absolute values of matching and standard contrast, \C-M\ - \C-S\, is plotted against the ratio of standard to inducing-grating contrast, C-S/C-I, the resulting functions are generally biphasic, revealing regions of both contrast overmatching (i.e., \C-M\ > \C-S\) and contrast under-matching, \C-M\ < \C-S\. A four-parameter model is presented that accounts for many features of the raw matching functions and that is mathematically similar to Semmelroth's account of the crispening effect in brightness matching [J. Opt. Soc. Am, 60, 1685 (1970)]. The model describes matching contrast, C-M, as the weighted sum of two nonlinear contrast-response functions whose inputs are C-S and C-S - C-I. The results are discussed relative to the crispening effect (the effect of contrast adaptation on perceived contrast) and to similarities and differences in luminance and contrast-domain visual processing.