Allard Rémy, Faubert Jocelyn
Université de Montréal, Montréal, Que., Canada H3T 1P1.
Vision Res. 2007 Apr;47(9):1129-41. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2007.01.010. Epub 2007 Mar 23.
To study the difference of sensitivity to luminance- (LM) and contrast-modulated (CM) stimuli, we compared LM and CM detection thresholds in LM- and CM-noise conditions. The results showed a double dissociation (no or little inter-attribute interaction) between the processing of these stimuli, which implies that both stimuli must be processed, at least at some point, by separate mechanisms and that both stimuli are not merged after a rectification process. A second experiment showed that the internal equivalent noise limiting the CM sensitivity was greater than the one limiting the carrier sensitivity, which suggests that the internal noise occurring before the rectification process is not limiting the CM sensitivity. These results support the hypothesis that a suboptimal rectification process partially explains the difference of LM and CM sensitivity.
为研究对亮度调制(LM)和对比度调制(CM)刺激的敏感度差异,我们比较了在LM噪声和CM噪声条件下的LM和CM检测阈值。结果显示,在这些刺激的处理过程中存在双重解离(属性间无或几乎无相互作用),这意味着这两种刺激至少在某些时候必须由不同的机制进行处理,并且两种刺激在整流过程后不会合并。第二个实验表明,限制CM敏感度的内部等效噪声大于限制载波敏感度的内部等效噪声,这表明在整流过程之前出现的内部噪声不会限制CM敏感度。这些结果支持了以下假设:次优整流过程部分解释了LM和CM敏感度的差异。