Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Mark A Georgeson

Publications and source records attributed to Mark A Georgeson.

10 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Binocular contrast vision at and above threshold.

A fundamental problem for any visual system with binocular overlap is the combination of information from the two eyes. Electrophysiology shows that binocular integration of luminance contrast occurs early in visual cortex, but a specific systems architecture has not been established for human vision. Here, we address this by performing binocular summation and monocular, binocular, and dichoptic masking experiments for horizontal 1 cycle per degree test and masking gratings. These data reject three previously published proposals, each of which predict too little binocular summation and insufficient dichoptic facilitation. However, a simple development of one of the rejected models (the twin summation model) and a completely new model (the two-stage model) provide very good fits to the data. Two features common to both models are gently accelerating (almost linear) contrast transduction prior to binocular summation and suppressive ocular interactions that contribute to contrast gain control. With all model parameters fixed, both models correctly predict (1) systematic variation in psychometric slopes, (2) dichoptic contrast matching, and (3) high levels of binocular summation for various levels of binocular pedestal contrast. A review of evidence from elsewhere leads us to favor the two-stage model.

Contrast Sensitivity↗
PubMed2006

Local luminance amplitude modulates the interpretation of shape-from-shading in textured surfaces.

The pattern of illumination on an undulating surface can be used to infer its 3-D form (shape-from-shading). But the recovery of shape would be invalid if the luminance changes actually arose from changes in reflectance. So how does vision distinguish variation in illumination from variation in reflectance to avoid illusory depth? When a corrugated surface is painted with an albedo texture, the variation in local mean luminance (LM) due to shading is accompanied by a similar modulation in local luminance amplitude (AM). This is not so for reflectance variation, nor for roughly textured surfaces. We used depth mapping and paired comparison methods to show that modulations of local luminance amplitude play a role in the interpretation of shape-from-shading. The shape-from-shading percept was enhanced when LM and AM co-varied (in-phase) and was disrupted when they were out of phase or (to a lesser degree) when AM was absent. The perceptual differences between cue types (in-phase vs out-of-phase) were enhanced when the two cues were present at different orientations within a single image. Our results suggest that when LM and AM co-vary (in-phase) this indicates that the source of variation is illumination (caused by undulations of the surface), rather than surface reflectance. Hence, the congruence of LM and AM is a cue that supports a shape-from-shading interpretation.

Contrast Sensitivity↗
PubMed2005

Edges and bars: where do people see features in 1-D images?

There have been two main approaches to feature detection in human and computer vision--based either on the luminance distribution and its spatial derivatives, or on the spatial distribution of local contrast energy. Thus, bars and edges might arise from peaks of luminance and luminance gradient respectively, or bars and edges might be found at peaks of local energy, where local phases are aligned across spatial frequency. This basic issue of definition is important because it guides more detailed models and interpretations of early vision. Which approach better describes the perceived positions of features in images? We used the class of 1-D images defined by Morrone and Burr in which the amplitude spectrum is that of a (partially blurred) square-wave and all Fourier components have a common phase. Observers used a cursor to mark where bars and edges were seen for different test phases (Experiment 1) or judged the spatial alignment of contours that had different phases (e.g. 0 degrees and 45 degrees ; Experiment 2). The feature positions defined by both tasks shifted systematically to the left or right according to the sign of the phase offset, increasing with the degree of blur. These shifts were well predicted by the location of luminance peaks (bars) and gradient peaks (edges), but not by energy peaks which (by design) predicted no shift at all. These results encourage models based on a Gaussian-derivative framework, but do not support the idea that human vision uses points of phase alignment to find local, first-order features. Nevertheless, we argue that both approaches are presently incomplete and a better understanding of early vision may combine insights from both.

Contrast Sensitivity↗
PubMed2003

Sensitivity to contrast modulation: the spatial frequency dependence of second-order vision.

We consider the overall shape of the second-order modulation sensitivity function (MSF). Because second-order modulations of local contrast or orientation require a carrier signal, it is necessary to evaluate modulation sensitivity against a variety of carriers before reaching a general conclusion about second-order sensitivity. Here we present second-order sensitivity functions for new carrier types (low pass (1/f) noise, and high pass noise) and demonstrate that, when first-order artefacts have been accounted for, the shape of the resulting MSFs are similar to one another and to those for white and broad band noise. They are all low pass with a likely upper frequency limit in the range 10-20 c/deg, suggesting that detection of second-order stimuli is relatively insensitive to the structure of the carrier signal. This result contrasts strongly with that found for (first-order) luminance modulations of the same noise types. Here the noise acts as mask and each noise type masks most those frequencies that are dominant in its spectrum. Thus the shape of second-order MSFs are largely independent of the spectrum of their noise carrier, but first-order CSFs depend on the spectrum of an additive noise mask. This provides further evidence for the separation of first- and second-order vision and characterises second-order vision as a low pass mechanism.

Artifacts↗
PubMed2003

Motion sharpening and contrast: gain control precedes compressive non-linearity?

Blurred edges appear sharper in motion than when they are stationary. We (Vision Research 38 (1998) 2108) have previously shown how such distortions in perceived edge blur may be accounted for by a model which assumes that luminance contrast is encoded by a local contrast transducer whose response becomes progressively more compressive as speed increases. If the form of the transducer is fixed (independent of contrast) for a given speed, then a strong prediction of the model is that motion sharpening should increase with increasing contrast. We measured the sharpening of periodic patterns over a large range of contrasts, blur widths and speeds. The results indicate that whilst sharpening increases with speed it is practically invariant with contrast. The contrast invariance of motion sharpening is not explained by an early, static compressive non-linearity alone. However, several alternative explanations are also inconsistent with these results. We show that if a dynamic contrast gain control precedes the static non-linear transducer then motion sharpening, its speed dependence, and its invariance with contrast, can be predicted with reasonable accuracy.

Contrast Sensitivity↗
PubMed2003

Motion, flash, and flicker: a unified spatiotemporal model of perceived edge sharpening.

Blurred edges appear sharper in motion than when they are stationary. We proposed a model of this motion sharpening that invokes a local, nonlinear contrast transducer function (Hammett et al, 1998 Vision Research 38 2099-2108). Response saturation in the transducer compresses or 'clips' the input spatial waveform, rendering the edges as sharper. To explain the increasing distortion of drifting edges at higher speeds, the degree of nonlinearity must increase with speed or temporal frequency. A dynamic contrast gain control before the transducer can account for both the speed dependence and approximate contrast invariance of motion sharpening (Hammett et al, 2003 Vision Research, in press). We show here that this model also predicts perceived sharpening of briefly flashed and flickering edges, and we show that the model can account fairly well for experimental data from all three modes of presentation (motion, flash, and flicker). At moderate durations and lower temporal frequencies the gain control attenuates the input signal, thus protecting it from later compression by the transducer. The gain control is somewhat sluggish, and so it suffers both a slow onset, and loss of power at high temporal frequencies. Consequently, brief presentations and high temporal frequencies of drift and flicker are less protected from distortion, and show greater perceptual sharpening.

Form Perception↗
PubMed2002

Seeing blur: 'motion sharpening' without motion.

It is widely supposed that things tend to look blurred when they are moving fast. Previous work has shown that this is true for sharp edges but, paradoxically, blurred edges look sharper when they are moving than when stationary. This is 'motion sharpening'. We show that blurred edges also look up to 50% sharper when they are presented briefly (8-24 ms) than at longer durations (100-500 ms) without motion. This argues strongly against high-level models of sharpening based specifically on compensation for motion blur. It also argues against a recent, low-level, linear filter model that requires motion to produce sharpening. No linear filter model can explain our finding that sharpening was similar for sinusoidal and non-sinusoidal gratings, since linear filters can never distort sine waves. We also conclude that the idea of a 'default' assumption of sharpness is not supported by experimental evidence. A possible source of sharpening is a nonlinearity in the contrast response of early visual mechanisms to fast or transient temporal changes, perhaps based on the magnocellular (M-cell) pathway. Our finding that sharpening is not diminished at low contrast sets strong constraints on the nature of the nonlinearity.

Humans↗
PubMed2002

Neural adjustments to image blur.

Blur is an intrinsic feature of retinal images that varies widely across images and observers, yet the world still typically appears 'in focus'. Here we examine the putative role of neural adaptation in the human perception of image focus by measuring how blur judgments depended on the state of adaptation. Exposure to unfocused images has previously been shown to influence acuity and contrast sensitivity, and here we show that adaptation can also profoundly affect the actual perception of image focus.

Adaptation, Physiological↗
PubMed2002

Shading and texture: separate information channels with a common adaptation mechanism?

We outline a scheme for the way in which early vision may handle information about shading (luminance modulation, LM) and texture (contrast modulation, CM). Previous work on the detection of gratings has found no sub-threshold summation, and no cross-adaptation, between LM and CM patterns. This strongly implied separate channels for the detection of LM and CM structure. However, we now report experiments in which adapting to LM (or CM) gratings creates tilt aftereffects of similar magnitude on both LM and CM test gratings, and reduces the perceived strength (modulation depth) of LM and CM gratings to a similar extent. This transfer of aftereffects between LM and CM might suggest a second stage of processing at which LM and CM information is integrated. The nature of this integration, however, is unclear and several simple predictions are not fulfilled. Firstly, one might expect the integration stage to lose identity information about whether the pattern was LM or CM. We show instead that the identity of barely detectable LM and CM patterns is not lost. Secondly, when LM and CM gratings are combined in-phase or out-of-phase we find no evidence for cancellation, nor for 'phase-blindness'. These results suggest that information about LM and CM is not pooled or merged--shading is not confused with texture variation. We suggest that LM and CM signals are carried by separate channels, but they share a common adaptation mechanism that accounts for the almost complete transfer of perceptual aftereffects.

Adaptation, Ocular↗