 |
| Volume 1, Number 1, Article 4, Pages 32-41 |
doi:10.1167/1.1.4 |
http://journalofvision.org/1/1/4/ |
ISSN 1534-7362 |
Brightness induction from rods
Hao Sun |
Visual Sciences Center, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA |
|
Joel Pokorny |
Visual Sciences Center, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA |
|
Vivianne C. Smith |
Visual Sciences Center, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA |
|
Abstract
Rod modulation of an annular surround can produce brightness contrast in a test field centered at 100 from the fovea. In our research, stimuli originated from a colorimeter that provided 4 primaries in both the circular test and the annular surround fields, and allowed independent modulation of the rods and each of the short (S)-, middle (M)-, and long (L)-wavelength-sensitive cone types. The chromaticity was set so fields had the same appearance as the equal energy spectrum. At 1 photopic troland (td), rod-induced modulation in the test field could be cancelled by either a rod- or a cone-nulling modulation added to the test field. The best cone nulling of rod induction showed residual flicker. Nulling was more effective, though still imperfect, with a cone-nulling stimulus of higher S-cone modulation contrast. Rod induction with square-wave, on-pulse, and off-pulse temporal profiles was closely similar. At higher light levels, 10 and 100 td, rod contrast could not be nulled by rod or cone modulation. The failure to achieve nulls may have been caused by either or both of the following hypotheses: (1) there is a mismatch between the rod and cone temporal waveforms; (2) there is strong rod input to the magnocellular pathway, but negligible rod input to the parvocellular pathway, as shown by single-unit electrophysiological data.
 |
|
History
Received February 8, 2001; published June 28, 2001
Citation
Sun, H., Pokorny, J., & Smith, V. C. (2001). Brightness induction from rods.
Journal of Vision, 1(1):4, 32-41,
http://journalofvision.org/1/1/4/,
doi:10.1167/1.1.4.
Keywords
rod, induction, brightness contrast, magnocellular, parvocellular
for related articles by these authors
for papers that cite this paper |
The color and brightness of an illuminated object does not depend solely
on the physical light reflected from its surface. The appearance of the object
depends also on the chroma and luminance of an adjacent or nearby field. One
well-known induction effect is contrast. For brightness contrast, a test field
appears darker when viewed in a more luminous surround. There are many contrast
studies involving both color and brightness induction; see reviews of Wyszecki
(1986) and Beck (1972). Brightness induction at
photopic levels shows asymmetry between incremental and decremental induction
(Heinemann, 1955). A bright surround induces disproportionately
more darkness than a dark surround induces brightness.
Few studies have analyzed the potential contribution of rod stimulation to induction.
Studies on scotopic induction have examined the perceived hue of a rod-test
stimulus with either successively or simultaneously presented cone-inducing
stimuli (Buck, 1997; Buck &
Brandt, 1995; Stabell & Stabell, 1975; 1978).
We are not aware of studies that have evaluated changes in visual perception
caused by rod-inducing stimuli.
We investigated rod induction with a new approach, using a 4 primary colorimetric
system that allowed independent stimulation of all 4 types of photoreceptors
in color normal trichromatic observers (Sun, Pokorny, &
Smith, 2001a). The apparatus displayed a 6° circular central test in
a 16° annular surround. A fixation target placed the center of the field
at an eccentricity of 10° in the temporal retina. The retinal region subtended
by the central field, between 7° and 13°, is anatomically homogeneous;
there is little variation in receptor populations (Curcio,
Sloan, Kalina, & Hendrickson, 1990), photoreceptor dimensions (Hendrickson
& Drucker, 1992), or macular pigment density (Hammond,
Wooten, & Snodderly, 1997; Moreland & Bhatt,
1984).
By using a modulation technique with a nulling task (Krauskopf,
Zaidi, & Mandler, 1986; Zaidi, Yoshimi, & Flannigan,
1991), we could investigate the effect of a rod- or cone-inducing stimulus
in the annular surround. The amount of induction could be assessed for either
a rod- or cone-nulling test. To look for asymmetry in incremental and decremental
contrast surrounds, we used asymmetric incremental and decremental modulation.
We found that modulation of rod activity in an annular surround altered the
appearance of the center. The center modulation could be nulled by rod or cone
modulation of the test field at low (1 troland [td]) but not at higher (10-100
td) retinal illuminances.
Apparatus
A Macintosh Quadra 950 computer and 4 National Instruments (Austin, TX) interface
boards (MIO-16, AO-6, and 2 DMA 2800) controlled an 8-channel colorimeter (Figure
1). The colorimeter presented a 6° circular center and a 16° annular
surround. The center and surround each consisted of 4 channels. The optics of
the center and surround channels were identical prior to combination. Light
from each light-emitting diode (LED) (L1-L8) was first spatially homogenized
by 2 spaced holographic diffusers (Physical Optics, Torrance, CA; 20° angle
of diffusion), and then collimated by a lens (76-mm focal length; 29-mm diameter).
Collimated light from each LED passed through a 3-cavity interference filter.
The 4 lights within the center or surround pathway were merged using dichroic
mirrors, then focused on a 2-mm artificial pupil by a field lens (60-mm focal
length; 29-mm diameter). The center-surround field configuration was formed
by a photometric cube with a mirrored ellipse on the hypotenuse. The photometric
cube was placed 1 focal length away from the field lens; hence, the image of
the center-surround field was focused at optical infinity. The optical pathlengths
from each of the 8 LEDs to the field lens were identical. The head of the observer
was held stable by a chin-rest, with the superciliary ridge of the viewing eye
resting against the eyepiece. Each observer's eye was 8 mm from the artificial
pupil. The size of the surround LED beam at this location, measured with an
optical comparator, was 2.2 mm in diameter. This size is consistent with the
calculated beam half-height width. A fixation point allowed the field to be
viewed at 10° in the temporal retina. Inconel neutral density filters, calibrated
for each primary, were inserted in the final common path to control the average
light level. The LED/interference filter combinations determined the spectra
of the primaries. The peak wavelengths of the 4 primaries for both center and
surround were 459, 516, 561, and 664 nm with half-height bandwidths of 8-10
nm. LEDtronics (Torrance, CA) manufactured the LEDs for the 459- and 664-nm
primaries; the 516- and 561-nm primaries originated from Nichia LEDs (San Jose,
CA). The LED luminance output was controlled by a train of 2 microsec constant-amplitude
pulses with varying density provided by the LED drivers. Twelve-bit digital/analog
(D/A) converters fed the LED drivers. A potentiometer scaled the input voltage
to the LED driver and, therefore, allowed adjustment of the maximum luminance
output of each LED. To maximize the bit resolution of the primaries, gelatin
neutral density filters were added to 459-nm (0.9 log unit), 516-nm (0.6 log
unit), and 664-nm (0.3 log unit) primaries, so that the DA output voltage for
each LED was near 50% of its maximum for a stimulus of illuminance 100 photopic
td and a chromaticity metameric to the equal energy spectrum.
|
 |
Figure
1. Eight-channel colorimeter diagram. L1 to L4 are center light-emitting
diodes (LEDs); L5 to L8 are surround LEDs. Light from each LED passed through
plastic diffusers (DF) before being collimated by a lens (L), and passing
through an interference filter (IF). The LED/filter combinations produced
primaries with dominant wavelengths of 459, 516, 561, and 664 nm. Lights
within the center and the surround pathways were combined using dichroic
mirrors (D). A photometric cube (PC) with a mirrored ellipse on the hypotenuse
formed the center-surround field configuration. A field lens (FL) focused
the LED images on the 2-mm artificial pupil (AP), and produced an image
of the field at optical infinity. |
 |
Calibration
The spectral distributions and the radiant outputs of the primaries were measured
at the eyepiece. The spectral output of each channel was measured at the maximum
LED output with an Optronics (Orlando, FL) OL754 spectroradiometer at 2-nm intervals.
Although the pulse-frequency modulation technique offers high LED output linearity
over a 3-log unit range for modulation around a mean level (Swanson,
Ueno, Smith, & Pokorny, 1987), we observed small but systematic deviations
from linearity with variation in steady light level. These deviations are presumably
caused by thermal effects associated with changes of current in the diode junction
(Watanabe, Mori, & Nakamura, 1992). Linearization
of each LED output was attained with 3 linear equations for the ranges of 0.1-1,
0.01-0.1, and 0.001-0.01 of the maximum LED output. The maximum photopic illuminance
output of the center 561-nm LED was measured with an EG&G (Gaithersburg,
MD) 550 radiometer/photometer and used as a reference to calculate the illuminances
of other LEDs.
Observers
Two observers, H.S. (author) and S.S. (naïve to the purpose and design
of the experiments), were normal trichromats as assessed with Ishihara pseudoisochromatic
plates and the Neitz OT anomaloscope. H.S. had a Farnsworth-Munsell 100-hue
error score of 4, and S.S. had an error score of 20. H.S. was myopic (-5.5)
and wore nontinted contact lenses during the experiment. S.S. was emmetropic.
Use of the 4 Primary Colorimetric System
Shapiro, Pokorny, and Smith (1996) gave a theoretical
introduction to a 4 primary colorimetric system. To implement a 4 primary colorimetric
system, it is necessary to have accurate estimates of an individual observer's
receptoral spectral sensitivities and prereceptoral filtering. First, we developed
a technique to evaluate whether an individual observer's receptoral sensitivities
could be characterized as linear transforms of standard observer data after
correcting for prereceptoral filtering differences between the individual and
the standard observer.
The CIE scotopic luminosity function V'(l) can be decomposed
into 2 components: the spectral sensitivity of the photoreceptor at the retina,
and the spectral transmittance of the prereceptoral filters:
|

|
V'(l)= W'(l) Fs(l) |
(1) |
where W'(l) represents
the CIE V'(l) expressed
at the retinal level and Fs(l) represents
transmittance of the prereceptoral filter associated with the standard observer
for scotopic photometry. The physiological basis of the W'(l) distribution
is the rhodopsin-absorption spectrum. We assume W'(l) is invariant
across observers because no rhodopsin polymorphisms have been reported for human
observers with normal visual function (Sung et al, 1991). Prereceptoral filter
transmittances F(l) are known
to vary among observers. For a scotopic luminance match between 2 narrow band
lights, reference light Pref and a test light Ptest,
the standard observer match is given by:
|

|
 |
(2) |
where as is calculated based on V'(l). For
a scotopic match made by an individual observer
|

|
 |
(3) |
where Fo(l) is the
prereceptoral filter transmittance for the individual observer, and ao
is set by the individual observer. Ratio as/ao
represents the ratio of the prereceptoral filtering for the standard observer
and an individual observer. Scotopic-luminance matching can be used to assess
the prereceptoral difference between an individual observer and the standard
observer for wavelengths where the scotopic sensitivity is higher than the photopic
sensitivity. In particular, this method is appropriate for primaries 459, 516,
and 561 nm.
At long wavelengths, the cones and the rods have similar sensitivities, preventing
the use of a scotopic luminance match to calibrate individual prereceptoral
filtering of the 664-nm primary. For this primary, we used a photopic colorimetric
match. The CIE 10° standard observer for colorimetry has a unique match
for the mixture of 459 and 561 nm matched to the mixture of 516 and 664 nm (Figure
2):
|

|
b1
459 nm + 561 nm = b2 516 nm + b3 664 nm |
(4) |
where b1, b2, and b3
are the tristimulus values calculated from CIE 10° color-matching functions.
For an individual observer, the values of the 459-, 516-, and 561-nm primaries
are first corrected for the individual prereceptoral filtering differences measured
by the scotopic luminance matches, and then they are fixed at the matching values
b1, b2, and 1.0. If the observer can make
a color match by adjusting only the radiance of the 664-nm primary (b3),
his or her receptoral spectral sensitivities at the 4 primary wavelengths can
be approximated by linear transforms of the standard observer data. The difference
between the 664-nm setting for the individual observer and the standard observer
corrects for the individual prereceptoral transmittance at 664 nm.

 |
Figure
2. The equation (4) color match represented on the CIE 10� chromaticity
diagram. The radiance of the 664-nm primary was adjustable; the radiances
of the 459, 516, and 561 were set at the expected match for the CIE 10�
standard observer, after correction for the differences in prereceptoral
filtering between the individual and the standard observer. |
 |
Heterochromatic Modulation Photometry
It is necessary to have accurate scotopic retinal illuminance matches to ensure
good isolation of the rod and cone receptors. Heterochromatic modulation photometry
(HMP) is a precise method for obtaining equiluminance for a pair of heterochromatic
standard/test lights presented in temporal alternation (Pokorny,
Smith, & Lutze, 1989). The average illuminance of the standard light
is fixed, and the average illuminance of the test light is set at a series of
prechosen values. On a given trial, the contrasts of the standard and test lights
are adjusted in tandem to determine the contrast threshold. The contrast sensitivity,
plotted as a function of the average illuminance of the test light, appears
V shaped. If we fit the data with a V-shaped template, the equiluminant point
between the test and standard lights can be estimated from the lowest sensitivity
point of the template.
The HMP and color-matching experiments were performed separately for the 6°
center or 16° annular surround. For the HMP measurements, the stimulus consisted
of 2 primaries, a standard 561-nm primary, and a test primary that was either
459 or 516 nm. The standard and test primaries were square-wave modulated in
counterphase at 6 Hz. The time-average illuminance of the standard primary was
fixed at 0.08 photopic td, corresponding to 0.07 scotopic td. The time-average
illuminance of the test primary varied from 0.04 scotopic td to 0.14 scotopic
td. Four sets of HMP curves were obtained: center 561 and 459 nm, center 561
and 516 nm, surround 561 and 459 nm, and surround 561 and 516 nm. The method
of adjustment was used to obtain the modulation thresholds. The observer dark-adapted
for 30 minutes prior to testing. Test illuminance was randomized from trial
to trial in each session. Modulation thresholds and standard deviations were
calculated from 10 threshold settings.
Each HMP data set was fitted with 2 templates (Pokorny
et al, 1989), an illuminance-independent contrast template and an illuminance-dependent
amplitude template. For a pair of temporally alternated standard and test lights,
the psychophysical response amplitude, A, can be calculated as:
contrast template,
|

|
A
= C / Mt |
(5) |
or amplitude template,
|

|
A
= LC/L0Mt |
(6) |
where L is the time-average illuminance, C is the illuminance
contrast of a pair of temporally alternated standard and test lights, L0
is a normalizing constant, and Mt is the optimal modulation
threshold for human observer determined by the Weber fraction. The contrast
template is appropriate if the time-average illuminance is constant, or if the
temporal sensitivity is independent of illuminance level (Weber's law). The
amplitude template is appropriate if the time-average illuminance is varied,
or if the temporal sensitivity is dependent on illuminance level. The assumption
that temporal sensitivity is independent of illuminance level is true at lower
temporal frequencies, but not at higher temporal frequencies where the threshold
is dependent on modulation amplitude (Kelly, 1961).
Pokorny et al (1989) used the amplitude template
to fit data collected at a frequency of 15 Hz. In our experiment, the average
illuminance of the standard primary 561 nm was kept constant, but the average
illuminance of the test light was varied. The frequency of the square-wave temporal
modulation was 6 Hz. The results of fitting were compared with both templates.
HMP results for center primaries are shown in Figure 3.
The equiluminant points obtained with the 2 templates differed by 0.02 to 0.08
log unit. For both observers, the contrast template fits were accepted because
the root mean square residuals for the fits were lower than for the amplitude
template for most of the data sets. For both observers, the prereceptoral filter
corrections from center and surround HMP agreed within 5%. At 459 nm, the prereceptoral
filtering for observer H.S. was 20% higher (.079 log unit) than that for observer
S.S.

 |
Figure 3. Heterochromatic
modulation photometry (HMP) results of center primaries for 2 observers.
The left panel shows data for observer H.S., and the right panel shows data
for observer S.S. The circles represent HMP for 561 and 459 nm, and the
triangles represent HMP for 561 and 516 nm. The lines represent the contrast
template fits. |
 |
Colorimetric Match
The observer was asked to make a successive color match between the mixture
of center (or surround) 459 + 561 nm and the mixture of center (or surround)
516 + 664 nm at about 390 photopic td. The 459-, 516-, and 561-nm primaries
were fixed at the expected match values calculated from the standard observer
with correction for individual prereceptoral filtering determined by HMP. Only
the radiance of 664 nm was adjustable. The observer pressed a button to switch
between the 2 epochs, and adjusted the amount of 664 nm until a satisfactory
color match was made (ie, the observer could not identify the direction of color
difference between the 2 center epochs). The difference in 664-nm settings between
the individual and the standard observer was used to correct for prereceptoral
filter variation at 664 nm.
Both observers could make satisfactory color matches: When center 459 + 561
nm was matched to center 516 + 664 nm, the observers could not tell the direction
of the chromatic difference between the 2 stimuli. Therefore, the 2 observers,
though differing slightly in prereceptoral filtering, both had receptoral spectral
sensitivities at the colorimeter primaries that could be approximated by linear
transforms of CIE 10° standard observer data.
To transform from the CIE 10° color matching into cone-based chromaticity,
we used the Smith-Pokorny transformation (Smith & Pokorny,
1975) applied to the 1964 10° color-matching functions (Shapiro
et al):
|

|
 |
(7) |
Rod
Induction
The nulling technique that we used is similar to that employed by Krauskopf
et al (1986) and Zaidi et al (1991). Figure 4 shows
a schematic diagram of the method. When an observer perceives an annular surround
change from bright to dark, a center field of the time-average luminance of
the surround will appear to change from dark to bright. By adding luminance
modulation to the center, the induced brightness change can be nulled, and the
center may appear steady again. In our experiments, the rod activity in an annular
surround was modulated. If there was a perceptual change in the center, the
observer attempted to null or minimize the change by adding modulation to the
center.

 |
Figure 4. Schematic
diagram of the nulling method. The surround is temporally modulated. The
induced modulation (dashed line) in the center is nulled by the nulling
modulation (solid line). |
 |
The surround-inducing modulation was a rod-temporal modulation. The center-nulling
modulation was either rod or cone (S+M+L) modulation. For the (S+M+L) cone nulling,
the nulling modulation amplitudes of all 3 cone types were varied together,
maintaining a constant chromaticity. We ran 3 additional conditions. (1) In
one condition, we varied the phase offset between the surround (inducing) and
center (nulling) modulations by fixing the surround at the maximal inducing
contrast and the center at the best nulling contrast measured without phase
offset. The observer adjusted the phase offset between center and surround modulation
to obtain minimal perceptual modulation of the center. (2) Because the observers
noted a small change in hue at the best cone- (S+M+L) nulling modulation, we
evaluated whether variation in chromaticity could reduce the residual center
modulation. The observer could vary the magnitude of S-cone modulation (kS),
with the M- and L-cone modulations fixed at the same contrast as the best (S+M+L)
cone-nulling contrast. In this procedure, variation in k altered the chromaticity
of the modulated component of the nulling stimulus. (3) We also ran a condition
in which the surround-inducing modulation was a cone-temporal modulation. We
used a rod-nulling modulation of the central test field to cancel the induced
cone modulation.
The temporal profile of the modulation was either square-wave, an on-pulse train,
or an off-pulse train (Figure 5). The modulation frequency
was 1 Hz. The time-average chromaticity of both center and surround was metameric
to the equal energy spectrum (s = 1, l = 0.67). For the square-wave condition,
the time-average illuminance of center and surround was the same, either 0.1,
1, 10, or 100 photopic td (0.052, 0.52, 4.83, 48.26 scotopic td). The scotopic
values do not scale exactly the photopic values because the time-average scotopic
troland was varied to get maximum rod contrast at 0.1 and 1 td. For the on-pulse
or off-pulse condition, the minimum or maximum center or surround illuminance
was fixed at the average illuminance levels of the square-wave condition, and
time-average illuminance changed with modulation contrast.

 |
Figure
5. Temporal configurations of the stimuli for induction. There were 3 temporal
profiles: square-wave, on-pulse train, and off-pulse train. In the square-wave
condition, the surround was modulated around the steady center illuminance
level. In the on-pulse condition, the surround had only incremental changes.
In off-pulse condition, the surround had only decremental changes. |
 |
In each experimental session, the type of photoreceptors modulated in the center
and surround was fixed, and there were 7 to 8 inducing contrasts with 5 settings
at each. The inducing contrasts were randomized from trial to trial. The nulling
contrasts and standard deviations were based on 10 settings.
Rod modulation caused induction at all 4 light levels, from 0.1 to
100 photopic td. At 10 td and 100 td, the perceptual change in the center induced
by surround-rod modulation could not be effectively nulled by either rod or
cone modulation. The same result occurred with a sine-wave modulated rod-inducing
stimulus. At 1 td, the perceptual change of the center caused by surround-rod
modulation could be nulled by either rod or (S+M+L) cone modulation, although
the nulling with (S+M+L) cone modulation was not perfect. With the amplitude
of the nulling stimulus fixed at its best contrast, we tried varying the relative
phase of the rod-inducing and cone-nulling stimuli, but this did not eliminate
the residual perceptual modulation. At 0.1 td, the center perceptual change
induced by surround-rod modulation could be nulled only by rod modulation; this
retinal illuminance was below cone threshold.
Figure 6 shows results of rod induction with rod or cone nulling, and cone induction
with rod nulling at 1 td. For rod nulling of rod induction, straight lines fit
the data well. The slopes of the linear fits were close to 1.0. For cone nulling
of rod induction, linear fits gave good results for observer H.S., but polynomial
fits gave slightly better results for observer S.S. (Table
1). The slopes of the linear fits for both observers were less than 0.5.
There were no consistent differences between the results for square-wave, on-pulse,
and off-pulse modulations. Rod nulling of cone induction is only shown for observer
H.S. Observer S.S. reported strong residual flicker and could not find a reliable
nulling contrast. The slope was about 1.25, higher than that of rod induction
with rod-nulling and rod induction with cone-nulling.
|
Inducing
|
Nulling
|
Retinal
Illuminance (td)
|
Temporal Profile
|
Fitting Equations
|
|
|
|
|
|
Observer H.S.
|
Observer S.S.
|
|
Rod
|
Rod
|
1
|
Square
|
y = -0.04+0.95x
|
y = -0.08+1.19x
|
|
|
|
|
On-pulse
|
y = -0.05+1.04x
|
y = -0.07+1.24x
|
|
|
|
|
Off-pulse
|
y = -0.05+0.91x
|
y = -0.04+0.99x
|
|
|
S+M+L
|
1
|
Square
|
y = -0.01+0.445x
|
y = -0.31+2.82x3.94x2
|
|
|
|
|
On-pulse
|
y = -0.008+0.36x
|
y = -0.05+0.95x1.55x2
|
|
|
|
|
Off-pulse
|
y = -0.001+0.37x
|
y = -0.04+0.88x1.53x2
|
|
|
Rod
|
0.1
|
Square
|
y = -0.05+0.89x
|
y = -0.12+1.56x
|
|
|
|
|
On-pulse
|
y = -0.05+0.98x
|
y = -0.03+1.14x
|
|
|
|
|
Off-pulse
|
y = -0.05+0.93x
|
y = -0.08+1.22x
|
|
|
kS+M+L
|
1
|
Square
|
y = -0.12+1.41x
|
y = -0.20+1.66x
|
|
S+M+L
|
Rod
|
1
|
Square
|
y = -0.031+1.25x
|
|
 |
Table
1. Fitting equations for the induction conditions. All fits except one
have an R value between 0.95 and 0.99.
|
 |

 |
Figure
6. Rod induction with rod or cone nulling and cone induction with rod
nulling at 1 td. The left panels show data for observer H.S., and the
right panels show data for observer S.S. Upper panels show square-wave
modulation data, middle panels show on-pulse modulation data, and lower
panels show off-pulse modulation data. Circles represent rod induction
with rod nulling data, solid squares represent rod induction with cone
nulling data, and open squares represent cone induction with rod nulling
data. The solid and dashed lines represent linear or polynomial fits.
|
 |
Figure 7 shows the results of rod induction with rod
nulling at 0.1 td. These data were fitted with linear functions with slope close
to unity. There was little difference in rod nulling of rod induction for data
obtained at 1 td and 0.1 td.

 |
Figure
7. Rod induction with rod nulling at 0.1 td. The left panel shows data for
observer H.S., and the right panel shows data for observer S.S. Circles
represent square-wave data, erected-triangles represent the on-pulse data,
and inverted-triangles represent the off-pulse data. |
 |
Figure 8 shows rod induction with (kS+M+L) cone nulling.
For both observers, kS cone-nulling slope was about 1.5, higher than the slope
of (S+M+L) cone nulling.

 |
Figure 8. Rod induction with (kS+M+L) or (S+M+L) cone
nulling. Squares represent (S+M+L) cone-nulling data, and circles represent
(kS+M+L) cone-nulling data. For the (kS+M+L) cone-nulling condition, the
center M- and L-cone contrasts were set to the nulling contrast for the
(S+M+L) cone-nulling condition. For both observers, kS cone-nulling slope
was about 1.5. |
 |
Rod modulation induced brightness contrast at all 4 light levels (0.1, 1, 10,
and 100 photopic td) that we measured. For the 2 higher light levels, 10 and
100 td, the induced-brightness changes could not be nulled by either rod or
cone modulation. At 1 td, the induced percept could be nulled by either rod
or cone modulation. At 0.1 td, it could be nulled by only rod modulation; this
luminance level was below the cone-absolute threshold. For 1 photopic td light
level, brightness change induced by cone (S+M+L) modulation in the surround
could be nulled by rod modulation in the center. At this light level, the amount
of rod nulling was proportional to the rod induction with a slope near 1.0,
and proportional to cone (S+M+L) induction with a slope of 1.25. The amount
of cone (S+M+L) nulling was about one half of the rod induction with a slope
near 0.5. These slopes suggested that cone modulation was more effective than
rod modulation, both as a nulling and as an inducing stimulus. We cannot determine
from our data whether this is a general property of induction or whether the
relative efficiencies of the rods and cones vary with relatively small variations
of light level, about 1 td.
We ran the on- and off-pulse conditions to determine whether there might be
parallels in induction to the anatomical (Daw, Jensen, &
Bunken, 1990) and psychophysical (Russell & Wheeler, 1983) evidence
of asymmetry between rod ON and OFF pathways. There was no asymmetry between
incremental and decremental rod induction. This may have resulted from the range
of attainable contrast for rod-isolating stimuli (up to 30%). For achromatic
contrast at photopic levels, lightness and darkness induction are highly asymmetric
when there are large differences between the inducer and test fields, but roughly
symmetric when the inducing luminance is close to the test luminance level (Heinemann,
1955).
Both observers reported no residual flicker at the best rod nulling of rod induction,
but clear residual flicker at the best cone nulling of rod induction. We tried
2 stimulus manipulations that we thought might improve the nulling. We adjusted
the relative phase of the rod-inducing and cone-nulling modulations, and we
varied the S-cone contribution to the cone-nulling stimulus. Phase adjustment
did not improve the field appearance. Increasing the S-cone modulation to (1.5S+M+L)
improved the nulling, but some residual modulation was still visible. With the
assumption that the inducing and induced modulations are complementary chromaticities
(Krauskopf et al, 1986; Zaidi,
Yoshimi, Flanigan, & Canova, 1992), the higher S-cone nulling stimulus
may be associated with the bluish appearance of rod vision under many experimental
conditions (Buck, 2001).
There are at least 2 possible reasons why we did not find a cone modulation
that nulled rod induction completely. First, differing temporal responses to
the rod- and cone-inducing and -nulling modulations could lead to the incomplete
cancellation between the rod and cone responses. Second, rod signals are transmitted
predominately in the MC pathway, according to single-unit electrophysiological
studies (Gouras & Link, 1966; Lee,
Pokorny, Smith, Martin, & Valberg, 1990; Lee, Smith,
Pokorny, & Kremers, 1997; Purpura, Kaplan, &
Shapley, 1988; Virsu & Lee, 1983; Virsu,
Lee, & Creutzfeldt, 1987; Wiesel & Hubel,
1966) and psychophysical studies (D'Zmura &
Lennie, 1986; Sun, Pokorny, & Smith, 2001b).
Cone modulation produces responses in both the MC and PC pathways. It is possible
that PC pathway cone modulation could be the source of the residual flicker.
The failure to achieve satisfactory nulls at the higher light levels may be
due to a mismatch of the temporal waveforms of the induced and nulling modulations,
as discussed above. Another intriguing possibility involves the lowpass temporal
filter associated with induction. For both brightness and color induction, induced
changes occur only at low temporal frequencies, below about 2.5 Hz (De
Valois, Webster, DeValois, & Lingelbach, 1986). Magnocellular units
in the primate retina and lateral geniculate nucleus show transient responses
at threshold contrasts (Kaplan, Lee, & Shapley, 1990)
and become more transient at high-contrast levels (Benardete,
Kaplan, & Knight, 1992; Lee, Pokorny, Smith, &
Kremers, 1997). If the nulling event involves the filtered sluggish temporal
waveform from the inducer and the unfiltered transient waveform from the nulling
stimulus, then there would be residual transient response that, if of sufficient
magnitude, could produce residual flicker. The effective nulling at the lower
luminance levels is consonant with reduced transience of the magnocellular responses
at low luminances (Lee et al, 1990; Purpura,
Tranchina, Kaplan, & Shapley, 1990). At low temporal frequencies, cone
mediated function is dominated by the parvocellular system, both for achromatic
(Pokorny & Smith, 1997) and chromatic stimuli.
The parvocellular responses are much less transient than magnocellular responses,
and parvocellular transience does not increase with contrast (Benardete
et al, 1992; Lee, Pokorny, Smith, & Kremers, 1994).
This may be why nulling has proven a highly effective technique in measuring
photopic brightness and chromatic induction (Krauskopf
et al, 1986; Zaidi et al, 1992).
This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grant EY00901. We
thank Shuji Nakamura for furnishing the Nichia LEDs, Jules Quinlan for technical
assistance in constructing the 8-channel colorimeter, Linda Glennie for programming
support, and Steven Shevell and Hannah Smithson for their comments on an early
draft. Publication was supported by Research to Prevent Blindness.
Commercial relationships: N.
Beck, J. (1972). Surface Color Perception. Ithaca: Cornell University
Press. Benardete, E. A., Kaplan, E., & Knight, B. W. (1992). Contrast gain
control in the primate retina: P-cells are not X-like, some M-cells are. Visual
Neuroscience, 8, 483-486.
[PubMed] Buck, S. L. (1997). Influence of rod signals on hue perception: evidence
from successive scotopic contrast. Vision Research, 37, 1295-1301.
[PubMed] Buck, S. L. (2001). What is the hue of rod vision? Color Research and
Application, 26, S57-S59. Buck, S. L., & Brandt, J. L. (1995). The range of simultaneous scotopic
contrast colors. Documenta Ophthalmologica Proceedings Series, 58, 309-316. Curcio, C. A., Sloan, K. R., Kalina, R. E., & Hendrickson, A. E. (1990).
Human photoreceptor topography. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 292,
497-523.
[PubMed] D'Zmura, M., & Lennie, P. (1986). Shared pathways for rod and cone
vision. Vision Research, 26, 1273-1280.
[PubMed] Daw, N. W., Jensen, E. J., & Bunken, W. J. (1990). Rod pathways in
the mammalian retinae. Trends in Neuroscience, 13, 110-115.
[PubMed] DeValois, R. L., Webster, M. A., De Valois, K. K., & Lingelbach, B.
(1986). Temporal properties of brightness and color induction. Vision Research,
26, 887-897.
[PubMed] Gouras, P., & Link, K. (1966). Rod and cone interaction in dark-adapted
monkey ganglion cells. Journal of Physiology, 184, 499-510.
[PubMed] Hammond, B. R., Wooten, B. R., & Snodderly, D. M. (1997). Individual
variations in the spatial profile of human macular pigment. Journal of the Optical
Society of America A, 14, 1187-1196.
[PubMed] Heinemann, E. G. (1955). Simultaneous brightness induction as a function
of inducing- and test-field luminances. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
50, 89-96. Hendrickson, A., & Drucker, D. (1992). The development of parafoveal
and mid-peripheral human retina. Behavioural Brain Research, 49, 21-31.
[PubMed] Kaplan, E., Lee, B. B., & Shapley, R. M. (1990). New views of primate
retinal function. In N. Osborne & J. Chader (Eds.), Progress in Retinal
Research (Vol. 9, pp. 273-336). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Kelly, D. H. (1961). Visual responses to time-dependent stimuli: I. Amplitude
sensitivity measurements. Journal of the Optical Society of America,
51, 422-429. Krauskopf, J. K., Zaidi, Q., & Mandler, M. B. (1986). Mechanisms of
simultaneous color induction. Journal of the Optical Society of America A,
3, 1752-1757.
[PubMed] Lee, B. B., Pokorny, J., Smith, V. C., & Kremers, J. (1994). Responses
to pulses and sinusoids in macaque ganglion cells. Vision Research, 34,
3081-3096.
[PubMed] Lee, B. B., Pokorny, J., Smith, V. C., Martin, P. R., & Valberg, A.
(1990). Luminance and chromatic modulation sensitivity of macaque ganglion cells
and human observers. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 7,
2223-2236.
[PubMed] Lee, B. B., Smith, V. C., Pokorny, J., & Kremers, J. (1997). Rod inputs
to macaque ganglion cells. Vision Research, 37, 2813-2828.
[PubMed] Moreland, J. D., & Bhatt, P. (1984). Retinal distribution of macular
pigment. Documenta Ophthalmologica Proceedings Series, 39, 127-132. Pokorny, J., & Smith, V. C. (1997). Psychophysical signatures associated
with magnocellular and parvocellular pathway contrast gain. Journal of the
Optical Society of America A, 14, 2477-2486.
[PubMed] Pokorny, J., Smith, V. C., & Lutze, M. (1989). Heterochromatic modulation
photometry. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 6, 1618-1623.
[PubMed] Purpura, K., Kaplan, E., & Shapley, R. M. (1988). Background light
and the contrast gain of primate P and M retinal ganglion cells. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 85, 4534-4537.
[PubMed] Purpura, K., Tranchina, D., Kaplan, E., & Shapley, R. M. (1990). Light
adaptation in the primate retina: Analysis of changes in gain and dynamics of
monkey retinal ganglion cells. Visual Neuroscience, 4, 75-93.
[PubMed] Russell, P. W., & Wheeler, T. G. (1983). Scotopic sensitivity to ON
and OFF stimulus transients. Vision Research, 23, 525-528.
[PubMed] Shapiro, A. G., Pokorny, J., & Smith, V. C. (1996). Cone-rod receptor
spaces, with illustrations that use CRT phosphor and light-emitting-diode spectra.
Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 13, 2319-2328.
[PubMed] Smith, V. C., & Pokorny, J. (1975). Spectral sensitivity of the foveal
cone photopigments between 400 and 500 nm. Vision Research, 15, 161-171.
[PubMed] Stabell, U., & Stabell, B. (1975). Scotopic contrast hues triggered
by rod activity. Vision Research, 15, 1119-1123.
[PubMed] Stabell, U., & Stabell, B. (1978). Scotopic hues of simultaneous contrast.
Vision Research, 18, 1491-1496.
[PubMed] Sun, H., Pokorny, J., & Smith, V. C. (2001a). Control of the modulation
of human photoreceptors. Color Research and Application, 26, S69-S75. Sun, H., Pokorny, J., & Smith, V. C. (2001b). Rod-cone interactions
assessed in inferred magnocellular and parvocellular postreceptoral pathways.
Journal of Vision. In Press. Sung, C. H., Davenport, C. M., Hennessey, J. C., Maumenee, I. H., Jacobson,
S. G., Heckenlively, J. R., Nowakowski, R., Fishman, G., Gouras, P., & Nathans,
J. (1991). Rhodopsin mutations in autosomal dominant retinitis pigmentosa. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 88, 6481-6485.
[PubMed] Swanson, W. H., Ueno, T., Smith, V. C., & Pokorny, J. (1987). Temporal
modulation sensitivity and pulse detection thresholds for chromatic and luminance
perturbations. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 4, 1992-2005.
[PubMed] Virsu, V., & Lee, B. B. (1983). Light adaptation in cells of macaque
lateral geniculate nucleus and its relation to human light adaptation. Journal
of Neurophysiology, 50, 864-878.
[PubMed] Virsu, V., Lee, B. B., & Creutzfeldt, O. D. (1987). Mesopic spectral
responses and the Purkinje shift of macaque lateral geniculate cells. Vision
Research, 27, 191-2000.
[PubMed] Watanabe, T., Mori, N., & Nakamura, F. (1992). A new superbright LED
stimulator: Photodiode-feedback design for linearizing and stabilizing emitted
light. Vision Research, 32, 953-961.
[PubMed] Wiesel, T., & Hubel, D. H. (1966). Spatial and chromatic interactions
in the lateral geniculate body of the rhesus monkey. Journal of Neurophysiology,
29, 1115-1156.
[PubMed] Wyszecki, G. (1986). Color appearance. In L. K. Boff, & J. P. Thomas
(Eds.), Handbook of Perception and Human Performance (Vol. I: Sensory
Processes and Perception). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Zaidi, Q., Yoshimi, B., & Flannigan, J. (1991). Influence of shape
and perimeter length on induced color contrast. Journal of the Optical Society
of America A, 8, 1810-1817.
[PubMed] Zaidi, Q., Yoshimi, B., Flanigan, N., & Canova, A. (1992). Lateral
interactions within color mechanisms in simultaneous induced contrast. Vision
Research, 32, 1695-1707.
[PubMed]
|
|