Abstract
A model for visual intensity threshold discrimination is described. Simplified assumptions represent the main features of the visual afferent paths. Discriminative responses are selected centrally by a statistical decision procedure, limited by the noise level. Noise arises from the irreducible physical variability of light, from spontaneous firing, and from variations in transmission in the afferent paths. These variations will tend to be positively correlated, The model was simulated on a computer: it correctly predicts the form of the Weber function (the relation between difference threshold and background intensity) and the features of spatial and temporal “summation”, It also shows that the function relating the eentral effeet of a stimulus to its physical intensity is unlikely to be logarithmic or a power function with a small exponent.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Aguilar, M., &Stiles, W. S. Saturation of the rod mechanism of the retina at high levels of stimulation.Optica Acta, 1954, 1, 59–65.
Alpern, M. Rod-cone independence in the after-flash effect.J. Phnisiol., 1965,176, 462–472.
Baker, H. D. The course of foveal light adaptation measured by the threshold intensity increment.J. Opt: Soc. Amer., 1949, 39, 172–179.
Barlow, H. B. Summation and inhibition in the Frog’s retina.J. Phu siol., 1953, 119, 69–88.
Barlow, H. B. Retinal noise and absolute threshold.J. Opt: Soc. Amer., 1956, 46, 634–649.
Barlow, H. B. Increment thresholds at low intensities considered as signal!noise discriminations.J. Physiol., 1957, 136, 469–488.
Barlow, H. B. Temporal and spatial summation in human vision at different background intensities.J. Physiol., 1958, 141. 337–350.
Barlow, H. B. A method of determining the overall quantum efficiency of visual discriminations.J. Physiol., 1962a. 160, 155–168.
Barlow, H. B. Measurements of the quantum efficiency of discrimination in human scotopic vision.J. Physiol., 1962b, 160, 169–188.
Barlow, H. B. Dark-adaptation: a new hypothesis.Vision Res., 1964, 4, 47–58.
Barlow, H. B., Fitzhugh, R., &Kuffler, S. W. Change of organization in the receptive fields of the cat’s retina during dark adaptation.J. Physiol., 1957, 137, 338–354.
Berelson, B., &Steiner, G. A.Human behavior. An inventory of scientijic findings. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World; 1964.
Birdsall, T. G. The theory of signal detectability. In H. Quastler (Ed.),Information theory in psychology. Goencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1955.
Blackwell, H. R., & Law, O. T. A study of possible “photosensitization” of the human eye by white light.Engng. Rsch. Inst. Rep. No. 2455-9-F. University of Michigan, June, 1958.
Brindley, G. S.Physiology of the retina and the visual pathway. London: Edward Arnold, 1960.
Cattell, J. M. On errors of observation.Amer. J. Psychol., 1893, 5, 285–293.
Crawford, B. H. Visual adaptation in relation to brief conditioning stimuli.Proc. Roy. Soc., 1947, 134B, 283–302.
Crouzy, M. Sur la limite absolue impsée par les fluctuations quantiques au seuil differentiel de luminance. Comptes rendus des séances de L’ Académie des Sciences, 1961, 253, 559–56l.
Dartnall, H. J. A.The visual pigments. London: Methuen, 1957.
Fechner, G. T.Elemente der Psychophysik. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1860.
FitzHugh, R. The statistical detection of threshold signals in the retina.J. gen. Physiol., 1957, 40, 925–948.
Glezer, V. D. The receptive fields of the retina.Vision Res., 1965, 5, 497–525.
Gregory, R. L. An experimental treatment of vision as an information source and noise channel. In E. C. Cherry (Ed.),Information theory. Third London Symposium. London: Butterworth, 1956.
Hagins, W. A. The quantum efficiency of bleaching of rhodopsinin situ.J. Physiol., 1955, 129, 22–23P.
Hartline, H. K. Intensity and duration in the excitation of single photoreceptor units.J. cell, comp. Physiol., 1934, 5, 229–247.
Hartline, H. K. The effects of spatial summation in the retina on the excitation of the fibers of the optic nerve.Amer. J. Physiol., 1940, 130, 700–711.
Hecht, S., Shlaer, S., &Pirenme, M. H. Energy, quanta and vision.J. gen. Physiol., 1942, 25, 819–840.
Holway, A. H. On the precision of photometric observations.J. Opt. Soc. Amer., 1937, 27, 120–123.
Jones, R. C. Quantum efficiency of human vision.J. opt. Soc. Amer., 1959, 49, 645–653.
Keller, M. The relation between the critical duration and intensity in brightness discrimination.J. exp. Psychol., 1941, 28, 407–418.
Le Grand, Y.Light. colour and vision. London: Chap man & Hall, 1957.
Levelt, W. J. M. Binocular brightness averaging and contour information,Brit. J. Psychol., 1965a, 56, 1–13.
Levelt, W. J. M.On binocular rivalry. Institute for Perception RVOTNO, Soesterberg, The Netherlands: 1965b.
Magoun, H. W.The waking brain. (2nd ed.), Springfield, Ill.: Thomas, 1963.
Matin, L. Binocular summation at the absolute threshold of peripheral vision.J. Opt. Soc. Amer., 1962, 52, 1276–1286.
Mueller, C. G. Frequency of seeing functions for intensity discrimination at various levels of adapting intensity.J. gen. Physiol., 1951, 34, 463–474.
Neyman, J., &Pearson, E. S. On the problern of the most efficient tests of statistical hypotheses.Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A. 1933, 231, 289–337.
Pieron, H. Vision in Intermittent Light. In W. D. Neff (Ed.).Contributions to sensory physiology. Vol I. New York: Academic Press, 1965. Pp. 179–264.
Pirenne, M. H. Physiological mechanisms of vision and the quantum nature of light.Biol. Rev., 1956, 31, 194–241.
Pirenne, M. H. Liminal brightness increments. In H. Davson (Ed.),The eye, Vol. 2. The visual process. New York: Academic Press, 1962a.
Pirenne, M. H. Dark-adaptation and night vision. In H. Davson (Ed.),The eye. Vol. 2. The visual process. New York: Academic Press, 1962b.
Ratliff, F.Mach bands: Quantitative studies on neural networks in the retina. San Francisco: Holden-Day, 1965.
Rose, A. The sensitivity performance of the human eye on an absolute scale.J. opt. Soc, Amer., 1948, 38, 196–208.
Rushton, W. A. H. The rhodopsin density in the human rods.J. Physiol., 1956, 134, 30–46.
Rushton, W. A. H. Peripheral coding in the nervous system. In W. A. Rosenblith (Ed.),sensory communication. New York: Wiley, 1961. Pp. 169–181.
Rushton, W. A. H. Increment threshold and dark adaptation.J. Opt. soc. Amer., 1963, 53, 104–109.
Rushton, W. A. H. Visual Adaptation.Proc. Roy. Soc. B. 1965a, 162, 20–46.
Rushton, W. A. H. The sensitivity of rods under illumination.J. Physiol., 1965b, 178, 141–160.
Shallice, T. The detection of change and the perceptual moment hypothesis.Brit. J. statist. Psychol., 1964, 17, 113–35.
Solomons, L. M. A new explanation of Weber’s law.Psychol. Rev., 1900, 7, 234–240.
Stein, R. B., &Matthews, P. B. C. Differences in variability of discharge frequency between primary and secondary muscle spindle afferent endings of the cat.Nature, 1965, 208, 1217–1218.
Steinhardt, J. Intensity discrimination in the human eye. I. The relation of ΔI/I to intensity.J. gen. Physiol., 1936, 20, 185–209.
Stevens, S. S. On the psychophysical law.Psychol. Rev., 1957, 64, 153–181.
Stevens, S. S. The psychophysics of sensory function.Amer. Scientist., 1960, 48, 226–253.
Stiles, W. S. Color vision: the approach through increment-threshold sensitivity.Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 1959, 45, 100–114.
Stroud, J. M. The fine structure of psychological time. In H. Quastler (Ed.),Information theory in psychology. Glencoe, Ill: The Free Press, 1955.
Swets, J. A. (Ed.), Signal detection and recognition by human observers. New York: Wiley, 1964.
Swets, J. A., Tanner, W. P., &Birdsall, T. G. Decision processes in perception.Psychol. Rev., 1961, 68, 301–340.
Tanner, W. P., &Swets, J. A. A decision-making theory of visual detection.Psychol. Rev., 1954, 61, 401–409.
Thurstone, L. L. Psychophysical analysis.Amer. J. Psychol., 1927, 38, 368–389.
Treisman, M. Temporal discrimination and the indifference interval: implications for a model of the “internal clock.”Psychol, Monogr., 1963, 77, (Whole No. 576).
Treisman, M. Noise and Weber’s Law: the discrimination of brightness and other dimensions.Psychol. Rev., 1964a, 71, 314–330.
Treisman, M. The effect of one stimulus on the threshold for another: an application of signal detectability theory.Brit. J. statist. Psychol., 1964b, 17, 15–35.
Treisman, M. Sensory scaling and the psychophysical law.Quart. J. exp. Psychol., 1964c, 16, 11–22.
Treisman, M. What do sensory scales measure?Quart. J. exp. Psychol., 1964d, 16, 387–391.
Treisman, M. Signal detection theory and Crozier’s law: derivation of a new sensory scaling procedure.J. Math. Psychol., 1965, 2, 205–218.
Treisman, M. Dark adaptation, light adaptation and retinal noise. 1967, (in preparation).
Treisman, M., & Watts, T. R. The relation between signal detectability theory and the traditional procedures for measuring sensory thresholds: estimating d’ from results given by the method of constant stimuli.Psychol. Bull., 1966 (in press).
White, C. T. Temporal numerosity and the psychological unit of duration.Psychol. Monogr., 1963, 77, (Whole No. 575).
Williams, T. P. Rhodops in bleaching: Relative effectiveness of high and low intensity flashes.Vision Res., 1965, 5, 633–638.
Wolf, E., &Zigler, M. J. Course of dark adaptation under various conditions of pre-exposure and testing.J. Opt: Soc. Amer., 1955, 45, 696–702.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Treisman, M. A statistical decision model for sensory discrimination which predicts Weber’s law and other sensory laws: Some results of a computer simulation. Perception & Psychophysics 1, 203–230 (1966). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207384
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207384