Levi D M, Klein S A, Wang H
College of Optometry, University of Houston, TX 77204-6052.
Vision Res. 1994 Dec;34(24):3265-92. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(94)90065-5.
This manuscript is concerned with three visual systems with degraded spatial vision: (i) anisometropic amblyopia; (ii) strabismic amblyopia; and (iii) the normal periphery. The question we ask here, is whether the poor positional acuity of each of these visual systems can be understood on the basis of reduced sensitivity to the local contrast information in the stimulus. To answer this question, we use a "test-pedestal" approach to position acuity. In the first experiment we measure our observers' thresholds for detecting both the pedestal stimuli (edges and lines) and the test or cue stimuli (lines and dipoles). This approach also provides an estimate of the size of the spatial pooling (integration) region for the local contrast cue. In experiments two and three, we measure line and edge vernier acuity as a function of contrast, and compare the losses to those found for the detection of the respective offset cues. The local contrast hypothesis predicts similar losses in vernier acuity and in "cue" detection in amblyopic or peripheral vision. Moreover, the precise form of the contrast response function can provide insights into the nature of the loss, and places constraints on the likely models for amblyopic or peripheral vision. Our results suggest that the loss in vernier acuity of our anisometropic amblyopes can be understood on the basis of the reduced local contrast sensitivity and by increased spatial pooling. In strabismic amblyopes and in the normal periphery, there appears to be an extra loss, which cannot be accounted for by either reduced local contrast sensitivity or by increased spatial pooling. Additional experiments and computational modeling suggest that the "extra" loss is not due to spatial undersampling or additive positional jitter, but rather results from positional noise at a "second" stage.
(i)屈光参差性弱视;(ii)斜视性弱视;以及(iii)正常周边视觉。我们在此提出的问题是,这些视觉系统中每一个的位置敏锐度不佳是否可以基于对刺激中局部对比度信息的敏感度降低来理解。为了回答这个问题,我们使用一种“测试 - 基座”方法来研究位置敏锐度。在第一个实验中,我们测量观察者检测基座刺激(边缘和线条)以及测试或提示刺激(线条和偶极子)的阈值。这种方法还提供了局部对比度提示的空间汇聚(整合)区域大小的估计。在实验二和实验三中,我们测量线条和边缘游标敏锐度作为对比度的函数,并将损失与检测相应偏移提示时发现的损失进行比较。局部对比度假说预测弱视或周边视觉中游标敏锐度和“提示”检测会有类似的损失。此外,对比度响应函数的精确形式可以深入了解损失的性质,并对弱视或周边视觉的可能模型施加限制。我们的结果表明,屈光参差性弱视患者的游标敏锐度损失可以基于局部对比度敏感度降低和空间汇聚增加来理解。在斜视性弱视患者和正常周边视觉中,似乎存在额外的损失,这既不能通过局部对比度敏感度降低也不能通过空间汇聚增加来解释。额外的实验和计算模型表明,“额外”损失不是由于空间欠采样或附加位置抖动,而是由“第二”阶段的位置噪声导致的。