Advertisement

A Comparison of Electrophysiological and Psychophysical Temporal Modulation Transfer Functions of Human Vision

  • C. R. Cavonius
  • C. E. Sternheim
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 24)

Abstract

Although the visual evoked cortical potential (VECP) is a measure of electrical activity at a relatively high level in the visual system, a close correlation is not always found between this response and perceptual phenomena. Part of this difference between electrical and perceptual responses must originate in the inherent variability of the VECP among different subjects (Emrich, 1970), and to the fact that physically similar stimuli can elicit different electrical responses depending upon their significance to the subject (Chapman, 1964). However, even when psychological variables are presumably controlled and reproducible responses are obtained, the VECP may still not be closely related to the subject’s perceptual experience. For example, Regan (1970) found that when flashes of two different colours are alternated, stimulus conditions that result in minimum perceptual flicker are usually not the same as those that elicit the minimum evoked potential. Similarly, Riggs and Whittle (1967) found that the subjective fading of visual stimuli that is caused by retinal image stabilization or binocular rivalry was not accompanied by a reduction in the VECP, although with a different electrode placement MacKay (1968) found that perceptual blanking of one brief stimulus by another that followed immediately was accompanied by suppression of the VECP that was normally elicited by the first stimulus. Kohn and Salisbury (1967) reported no increase in the amplitude of electrical activity elicited by stimuli that were presented at flash rates at which brightness enhancement occurred, although their technique of sharply filtering the VECP at the stimulus frequency and measuring only the amplitude of this fundamental may overlook changes in the amplitude or latency of other components.

Keywords

Transfer Function Modulation Transfer Function Human Vision Binocular Rivalry Flash Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. ARMINGTON, J.C. 1968. Vision Res., 8, 263.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BROWN, K.T. 1968. Vision Res., 8, 633.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BROWN, K.T. and J.M. CRAWFORD. 1967. Vision Res., 7, 149.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. CAMPBELL, F.W. and L. MAFFEI. 1970. J. Physiol., 207, 635.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. CHAPMAN, R.M. and H.R. BRAGDON, 1964. Nature, 203, 1155.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. COBB, W.A., H.B. MORTON and G. ETTLINGER. 1967. Nature, 216, 1123.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DE LANGE DZN. H. 1954. J. opt. Soc. Amer., 44, 380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. EMRICH, H. 1970. Vision Res., 10, 1155.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. FUORTES, M.G.F. and A.L. HODGKIN. 1964. J. Physiol., 172, 239.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. HARTER, M.R. and C.T. WHITE. 1968. Vision Res., 8, 701.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. JOHNSON, E.P. and T.N. CORNSWEET. 1954. Nature, 174, 614.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. JOHNSON, E.P., L.A. BIGGS and A.M.L. SCHICK. 1966. In: Clinical Electroretingraphy, H.M. Burian and J.H. Jacobson, eds., Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  13. KELLY, D.H. 1964. Doc. Ophthal., 23, 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. KELLY, D.H. 1969a. J. opt. Soc. Amer., 59, 1361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. KELLY, D.H. 1969b. J. opt. Soc. Amer., 59, 1665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. KELLY, D.H. 1971a. J. opt. Soc. Amer., 61, 537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. KELLY, D.H. 1971b. J. opt. Soc. Amer., 61, 537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. KOHN, H. and I. SALISBURY. 1967. Vision Res., 7, 461.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. MACKAY, D.M. 1968. Nature, 217, 81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. MAY, J.G. and J.B. SIEGFRIED. 1970. Vision Res., 10, 1399.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. MILLER, R.F. and J.E. DOWLING. 1970. J. Neurophysiol., 33, 323.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. MILLODOT, M. and L.A. RIGGS. 1970. Arch. Ophthal., 84, 272.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. REGAN, J.G. and J.B. SIEGFRIED. 1970. Electroenceph. clin. Neuro-physiol., 20, 238.Google Scholar
  24. REGAN, D. 1970. Vision Res., 10, 163.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. RIGGS, L.A. 1941. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med., 48, 204.Google Scholar
  26. RIGGS, L.A. 1969. J. opt. Soc. Amer., 59, 1558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. RIGGS, L.A., R.N. BERRY and M. WAYNER, 1949. J. opt. Soc. Amer., 39, 427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. RIGGS, L.A. and C.E. STERNHEIM. 1969. J. opt. Soc. Amer., 59, 635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. RIGGS, L.W. and P. WHITTLE. 1967. Vision Res., 7, 441.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. SIEGFRIED, J.B. 1970. Vision Res., 10, 1339.Google Scholar
  31. SIEGFRIED, J.B. 1971. Vision Res., 11, 405.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. SOKOL, S. and L.A. RIGGS. 1971. Invest. Ophthal., 10, 171.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. SPEKREIJSE, H. 1966. Analysis of ERG responses in man, evoked by sine wave modulated light. Thesis, W. Junk, Publ. The Hague.Google Scholar
  34. SPEKREIJSE, H., L.H. VAN DER TWEEL and D. REGAN. 1971. Vision Res., 11, (in press).Google Scholar
  35. SPEKREIJSE, H. and L.H. VAN DER TWEEL. 1966. In: Clinical Electroretino-graphy, H.M. Burian and J.H. Jacobson, eds., Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  36. SPERLING, G. 1964. Doc. Ophthal., 23, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. SPERLING, G. and M.M. SONDHI. 1968. J. opt. Soc. Amer., 58, 1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. STERNHEIM, C.E. and C.R. CAVONIUS. 1972. Vision Res., (in press).Google Scholar
  39. van der TWEEL, L.H. 1964. Doc. Ophthal., 18, 287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. van der TWEEL, L.H. and H.F. VERDUYN LUNEL. 1965 Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 18, 581.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. R. Cavonius
    • 1
  • C. E. Sternheim
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Medical OpticsUniversity of MunichGermany
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MarylandUSA

Personalised recommendations