Wang H, Levi D M, Klein S A
University of California at Berkeley, School of Optometry, USA.
Vision Res. 1998 May;38(9):1239-51. doi: 10.1016/s0042-6989(97)00278-2.
Spatial uncertainty and undersampling are two of the major hypotheses for the losses of amblyopic spatial vision. To test these two hypotheses, equivalent spatial uncertainty and spatial integration efficiency in spatial position judgments were quantified with a spatial perturbation paradigm. Specifically, three-line bisection thresholds were measured for the amblyopic eyes of two strabismic and two anisometropic amblyopes, and for normal controls. The horizontal stimulus lines comprised discrete dark dots distributed randomly around the mean line position according to a gaussian function. Line separation, the number of dots on each line (N), stimulus contrast (C), and the vertical standard deviation (sigma e) of the dot distribution were varied. An ideal observer analysis quantified the magnitude of equivalent spatial uncertainty (sigma s), the effective number of dots used (k), and spatial integration efficiency (k/N). At the optimal separation, equivalent spatial uncertainty (sigma s) is approximately ten-fold higher in both types of amblyopic visual systems than in control observers, even when stimulus visibility is accounted for. This apparent increase in sigma s is largely due to a shift in spatial scale of analysis in the amblyopic eye. Integration efficiency (k/N) increases in proportion to stimulus contrast or visibility (in units of detection threshold). Unlike sigma s, k/N is different between the two types of amblyopia. For the anisometropic observers, k/N is quantitatively similar to that of control observers. For the strabismic observers, on the other hand, k/N is reduced even after taking stimulus visibility into account. The decreased spatial integration efficiency in the strabismic visual system suggests that spatial undersampling may occur at a secondary stage of visual processing, beyond the detection stage.
