Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Stanley A Klein

Publications and source records attributed to Stanley A Klein.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Separating transducer non-linearities and multiplicative noise in contrast discrimination.

It has been difficult to isolate the factors that limit contrast discrimination, one of the most fundamental aspects of the visual system. claim to have found a method that can answer the question of why discrimination thresholds increase with reference contrast. Is it because of a saturating contrast response function or because of increasing (multiplicative) noise? Based on four datasets they conclude that multiplicative noise is the controlling factor. disagree and claim the jury is still out because only one of the four datasets has sufficiently good statistics to support the KCT claim. I reanalyze the KCT data and come to a different conclusion. I agree with GM that two of the four datasets have thresholds that are too low to be useful in discriminating models and that one dataset supports the KCT claim. The fourth dataset is the most interesting one in that it provides the strongest support for the KCT claim, but GM throw it out because the chi(2) of the best fit is high. The present paper makes a number of points: (1) two novel methods are used to fit the fourth dataset. One pair of models is based on the strong "finger error" asymmetry between the high and low contrast asymptotes of the psychometric function in the fourth dataset. I find that some version of multiplicative noise is needed. However, it may be multiplicative noise that depends on prior trials rather than just on the present trial. (2) Another model that allows the contrast response function to have maximal freedom fits the fourth dataset with a reasonable chi square, and with a need for multiplicative noise. (3) I examine alternative parameterizations of the model functions used by KCT and GM that provide a more intuitive interpretation of the parameters. In summary, although I find the data do support a generalized form of multiplicative noise, I agree with GM that the jury remains out about what are the factors that limit contrast discrimination.

Contrast Sensitivity↗
PubMed2006

The receptive field and internal noise for position acuity change with feature separation.

Humans are exquisitely sensitive to changes in relative position. A fundamental and long-standing question is how information for position acuity is integrated along the length of the target, and why visual performance deteriorates when the feature separation increases. To address this question, we used a target made of discrete samples, each subjected to binary positional noise, combined with reverse correlation to estimate the behavioral "receptive field" (template), and a novel 10-pass method to quantify the internal noise that limits position acuity. Our results show that human observers weigh individual parts of the stimulus differently and importantly, that the shape of the template changes markedly with feature separation. Compared to an ideal observer, human performance is limited by a template that becomes less efficient as feature separation increases and by an increase in random internal noise. Although systematic internal noise is thought to be one of the important components limiting detection thresholds, we found that systematic noise is negligible in our position task.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

The essential role of stimulus temporal patterning in enabling perceptual learning.

Little is known about how temporal stimulus factors influence perceptual learning. Here we demonstrate an essential role of stimulus temporal patterning in enabling perceptual learning by showing that 'unlearnable' contrast and motion-direction discrimination (resulting from random interleaving of stimuli) can be readily learned when stimuli are practiced in a fixed temporal pattern. This temporal patterning does not facilitate learning by reducing stimulus uncertainty; further, learning enabled by temporal patterning can later generalize to randomly presented stimuli.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed2005

"Crowding" in normal and amblyopic vision assessed with Gaussian and Gabor C's.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the extent and specificity of crowding in the normal fovea and periphery, and the central field of amblyopes, using "C"-like patterns. In the first experiment we measured the extent of crowding for C-patterns comprised of Gaussian patches, over a range of target sizes using a four-alternative forced-choice (up, down, left, right) method. We found that the extent of foveal crowding is proportional to target size. In contrast, in normal periphery and in the central field of amblyopes, crowding extends over large spatial distances and is not size dependent. Crowding for our stimuli occurred with both same-polarity and opposite polarity patches. To test whether the extended crowding in amblyopia resulted from a shift in the spatial scale of analysis, we measured crowding with band-limited C-patterns (comprised of Gabor patches) in a gap localization task (2-AFC). With band-limited stimuli, and a task that does not involve judging the orientation of the gap, the amblyopic eyes showed crowding over a longer distance than that of normal observers. We also tested the orientation specificity of crowding by varying the orientation of the flanks. In normal fovea, crowding is orientation specific: in amblyopia it is not. While crowding in normal fovea can be explained by simple pattern masking, crowding seen in normal periphery and amblyopes cannot. Instead we suggest that crowding in amblyopic and peripheral vision is a result of extended pooling at a stage following the stage of feature detection.

Amblyopia↗
PubMed2005

What is the signal in noise?

Visual perception is limited by both the strength of the neural signals, and by the noise in the visual nervous system; however, little is known about what aspects of the input noise the human visual system is sensitive to, i.e., what is the signal in noise? In order to investigate this question we asked observers to discriminate differences in the strength of one-dimensional white noise. We measured their response consistency and classification images and compared the results with an ideal energy detector. Our results and modelling show that discrimination of noise is limited by the observer's template (i.e., the weighted combination of energy in each stimulus component) plus higher order nonlinearities (systematic noise), and by sources of random internal noise. We found that systematic noise is present only near detection threshold. Surprisingly, we found that the human template is "adaptive"-- its shape depends on the spatial frequency band of the noise-suggesting that sensitivity to spatial noise is not simply determined via passive filtering.

Discrimination, Psychological↗
PubMed2005

"Phase capture" in amblyopia: the influence function for sampled shape.

This study was concerned with what stimulus information humans with amblyopia use to judge the shape of simple objects. We used a string of four Gabor patches to define a contour. A fifth, center patch served as the test pattern. The observers' task was to judge the location of the test pattern relative to the contour. The contour was either a straight line, or an arc with positive or negative curvature. We asked whether phase shifts in the inner or outer pairs of patches distributed along the contour influence the perceived shape. That is, we measured the phase shift influence function. Our results, consistent with previous studies, show that amblyopes are imprecise in shape discrimination, showing elevated thresholds for both lines and curves. We found that amblyopes often make much larger perceptual errors (biases) than do normal observers in the absence of phase shifts. These errors tend to be largest for curved shapes and at large separations. In normal observers, shifting the phase of inner patches of the string by 0.25 cycle results in almost complete phase capture (attraction) at the smallest separation (2 lambda), and the capture effect falls off rapidly with separation. A 0.25 cycle shift of the outer pair of patches has a much smaller effect, in the opposite direction (repulsion). While several amblyopic observers showed reduced capture by the phase of the inner patches, to our surprise, several of the amblyopes were sensitive to the phase of the outer patches. We used linear multiple regression to determine the weights of all cues to the task: the carrier phase of the inner patches, carrier phase of the outer patches and the envelope of the outer patches. Compared to normal observers, some amblyopes show a weaker influence of the phase of the inner patches, and a stronger influence of both the phase and envelope of the outer patches. We speculate that this may be a consequence of abnormal "crowding" of the inner patches by the outer ones.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Perceptual learning in contrast discrimination and the (minimal) role of context.

Unlike most visual tasks, contrast discrimination has been reported to be unchanged by practice (Dorais & Sagi, 1997; Adini, Sagi, & Tsodyks, 2002), unless practice is undertaken in the presence of flankers (context-enabled learning, Adini et al., 2002). Here we show that under experimental conditions nearly identical to those in the no-flanker practice experiment of Adini et al. (2002), practice significantly improved contrast discrimination. Moreover, in a separate experiment, we found that practice without flankers can improve contrast discrimination to a level only reached with flankers in Adini et al. (2002), but further practice with flankers produces no further improvement of contrast discrimination. These results call into question whether the "context-enabled learning" proposed by Adini et al. (2002) is different from regular contrast learning without flankers. In separate experiments, we found that contrast learning is tuned to spatial frequency, orientation, retinal location, and, unexpectedly, contrast. We also replicated Sagi, Adini, Tsodyks, and Wilkonsky's (2003) more recent finding that no regular contrast learning occurs if reference contrasts are randomly interleaved (contrast roving), and further demonstrated that flankers have no effect on contrast learning under contrast roving, another piece of evidence equating "context-enabled learning" to regular contrast learning. The contrast specificity of learning and the lack of learning under contrast roving provide new evidence in favor of a multiple contrast-selective channels model of contrast discrimination, and against saturating transducer models and multiplicative noise models.

Contrast Sensitivity↗
PubMed2004

Perceptual learning improves efficiency by re-tuning the decision 'template' for position discrimination.

Visual position discrimination improves with practice; however, the mechanism(s) underlying this improvement are not yet known. We used positional noise to explore the underlying neural mechanisms and found that position discrimination improved with practice over a range of noise levels. This improvement can be largely explained by an increasing efficiency with which observers used positional information in the stimulus. In a second experiment, we tested the hypothesis that the improved efficiency reflects a re-tuning of the observers' perceptual 'template'--the weightings of inputs from basic visual mechanisms--to more closely match the ideal template required to perform the perceptual task. Using a new technique to measure which parts of the stimulus influenced the observer's performance, we were able to record the re-tuning of the decision template across training sessions; we found a robust and steady increase in template efficiency during learning.

Discrimination, Psychological↗
PubMed2003

Cross- and iso- oriented surrounds modulate the contrast response function: the effect of surround contrast.

The detectability and appearance of visual targets can be modulated by surround stimuli. In this study we asked how cross- and iso-oriented surrounds modulate contrast detection and discrimination in foveal vision. We systematically measured the Threshold-versus-Contrast (TvC) functions over a wide range of pedestal and surround contrasts. Our results show that cross-oriented surrounds lower the contrast threshold over the entire range of pedestal and surround contrasts, but iso-surround modulation of the TvC function is dependent on the relative contrast, being facilitative when the surround/pedestal contrast ratio Csur/Cped < 1 and suppressive when Csur/Cped > 1. Data fitting indicates that cross-surround modulation (facilitation) is mainly due to improved gain, except at very low and high surround contrasts. Iso-surround modulation on the other hand is more complicated, probably reflecting more than one surround process as determined by the relative contrast.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Noise provides some new signals about the spatial vision of amblyopes.

Amblyopia results in a loss of contrast sensitivity and position acuity. Here we report the results of experiments using noise to try to better understand the nature of the neural losses in amblyopia. In the first experiment, we used noise to derive the template or classification image used to detect a target and to discriminate its position. We found that some amblyopic observers show markedly abnormal templates for the position task and moderately abnormal classification images for the detection task; however, the abnormal template could not fully account for the loss of performance (efficiency). Reduced efficiency in the amblyopic visual system may reflect a poorly matched template, a high fraction of internal to external noise, or both. Comparison of the observers' performance with that of their template suggests that the amblyopes have a high fraction of internal (relative to external) noise. To analyze the internal noise further, we used a "double-pass" technique, in which observers performed the identical experiment twice. The amount of disagreement between the two experiments provides another estimate of the fraction of internal noise. Amblyopes show a much higher fraction of stimulus-dependent internal noise than do normal observers. We conclude that the loss of efficiency in amblyopia is attributable in part to a poorly matched template, but to a greater degree, to a high fraction of internal (relative to external) noise.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

"Phase capture" in the perception of interpolated shape: cue combination and the influence function.

This study was concerned with what stimulus information observers use to judge the shape of simple objects. We used a string of four Gabor patches to define a contour. A fifth, center patch served as a test pattern. The observers' task was to judge the location of the test pattern relative to the contour. The contour was either a straight line, or an arc with positive or negative curvature (the radius of curvature was either 2 or 6 deg). We asked whether phase shifts in the inner or outer pairs of patches distributed along the contour influence the perceived shape. That is, we measured the phase shift influence function. We found that shifting the inner patches of the string by 0.25 cycle results in almost complete phase capture (attraction) at the smallest separation (2 lambda), and the capture effect falls off rapidly with separation. A 0.25 cycle shift of the outer pair of patches has a much smaller effect, in the opposite direction (repulsion). In our experiments, the contour is defined by two cues--the cue provided by the Gabor carrier (the 'feature' cue) and that defined by the Gaussian envelope (the 'envelope' cue). Our phase shift influence function can be thought of as a cue combination task. An ideal observer would weight the cues by the inverse variance of the two cues. The variance in each of these cues predicts the main features of our results quite accurately.

Contrast Sensitivity↗
PubMed2002

Darkness beyond the light: attentional inhibition surrounding the classic spotlight.

The aim of the present investigation was to determine the nature and spatial distribution of selective visual attention. Using cortical source localization of ERP data corresponding to 60 task-irrelevant stimuli across the visual field, we assessed attention effects on visual processing. Consistent with previous findings, visual processing was enhanced at the attended spatial location. In addition, this facilitation of processing extended from the attended location to the point of fixation resulting in a region of facilitation. Furthermore, a large region of inhibition was found surrounding this region of facilitation. The latter result is inconsistent with a simple facilitative spotlight model of attention and indicates that attention effects can be both facilitatory and inhibitory.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Libet's temporal anomalies: a reassessment of the data.

Benjamin Libet compared the perceived time of direct brain stimulation to the perceived time of skin stimulation. His results are among the most controversial experiments at the interface between psychology and philosophy. The new element that I bring to this discussion is a reanalysis of Libet's raw data. Libet's original data were difficult to interpret because of the manner in which they were presented in tables. Plotting the data as psychometric functions shows that the observers have great uncertainty about the relative timing of events, as seen the shallow psychometric slopes. A second indication of uncertainty comes from Libet's use of three response categories, A first; B first; and A and B simultaneous. The large number of "perceptually simultaneous" responses provides a further measure of the difficulty of the judgment. There are thus a very broad range of stimulus delays in which the subject is unable to make an accurate ordering response. These points provide evidence that there is no compelling reason to invent exotic or ad hoc mechanisms to account for Libet's data since the uncertainty window is large enough to allow simple mechanism such as memory shifts. Libet argued that his data provide evidence for a backward referral in time. I argue that even though Libet's own data are weak, there are good arguments for a backward referral mechanism to help the subject make sense out of the tangled chaos of asynchronous information associated with experienced events.

Cerebral Cortex↗
PubMed2002

Suppressive and facilitatory spatial interactions in amblyopic vision.

Amblyopic vision is characterized by reduced spatial resolution, and inhibitory spatial interactions ("crowding") that extend over long distances. The present paper had three goals: (1) To ask whether the extensive crowding in amblyopic vision is a consequence of a shift in the spatial scale of analysis. To test this we measured the extent of crowding for targets that were limited in their spatial frequency content, over a large range of target sizes and spatial frequencies. (2) To ask whether crowding in amblyopic vision can be explained on the basis of contrast masking by remote flanks. To test this hypothesis we measured and compared crowding in a direction-identification experiment with masking by remote flanks in a detection experiment. In each of the experiments our targets and flanks were comprised of Gabor features, thus allowing us to control the feature contrast, spatial frequency and orientation. (3) To examine the relationship between the suppressive and facilitatory interactions in amblyopic contrast detection and "crowding". Our results show that unlike the normal fovea [Levi, Klein, & Hariharan, Journal of Vision 2 (2002a) 140] crowding in amblyopia is neither scale invariant, nor is it attributable to simple contrast masking. Rather, our results suggest that suppressive spatial interactions in amblyopic vision extend over larger distances than in normal foveal vision, similar to peripheral vision of non-amblyopic observers [Levi, Hariharan, & Klein, Journal of Vision 2 (2002b) 167], for targets of the same size. Observers can easily detect the features that comprise our targets (Gabor patches) under conditions where crowding is strong. Thus, our speculation is that crowding occurs because the target and flanks are combined or pooled at a second stage that is coarse in the amblyopic visual system, following the stage of feature extraction. In amblyopic vision, this pooling takes place over a large spatial distance.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Evidence for an attentional component of the perceptual misalignment between moving and flashing stimuli.

If a pair of dots, diametrically opposed to each other, is flashed in perfect alignment with another pair of dots rotating about the visual fixation point, most observers perceive the rotating dots as being ahead of the flashing dots (flash-lag effect). This psychophysical effect was first interpreted as the result of a perceptual extrapolation of the position of the moving dots. Also, it has been conceived as the result of differential visual latencies between flashing and moving stimuli, arising from purely sensory factors and/or expressing the contribution of attentional mechanisms as well. In a series of two experiments, we had observers judge the relative position between rotating and static dots at the moment a temporal marker was presented in the visual field. In experiment 1 we manipulated the nature of the temporal marker used to prompt the alignment judgment. This resulted in three main findings: (i) the flash-lag effect was observed to depend on the visual eccentricity of the flashing dots; (ii) the magnitude of the flash-lag effect was not dependent on the offset of the flashing dot; and (iii) the moving stimulus, when suddenly turned off, was perceived as lagging behind its disappearance location. Taken altogether, these results suggest that neither visible persistence nor motion extrapolation can account for the perceptual flash-lag phenomenon. The participation of attentional mechanisms was investigated in experiment 2, where the magnitude of the flash-lag effect was measured under both higher and lower predictability of the location of the flashing dot. Since the magnitude of the flash-lag effect significantly increased with decreasing predictability, we conclude that the observer's attentional set can modulate the differential latencies determining this perceptual effect. The flash-lag phenomenon can thus be conceived as arising from differential visual latencies which are determined not only by the physical attributes of the stimulus, such as its luminance or eccentricity, but also by attentional mechanisms influencing the delays involved in the perceptual processing.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Classification images for detection and position discrimination in the fovea and parafovea.

Classification images provide an important new method for learning about which parts of the stimulus are used to make perceptual decisions and provide a new tool for measuring the template an observer uses to accomplish a task. Here we introduce a new method using one-dimensional sums of sinusoids as both test stimuli (discrete frequency patterns [DFP]) and as noise. We use this method to study and compare the templates used to detect a target and to discriminate the target's position in central and parafoveal vision. Our results show that, unsurprisingly, the classification images for detection in both foveal and parafoveal vision resemble the DFP test stimulus, but are considerably broader in spatial frequency tuning than the ideal observer. In contrast, the classification images for foveal position discrimination are not ideal, and depend on the size of the position offset. Over a range of offsets from close to threshold to about 90 arc sec, our observers appear to use a peak strategy (responding to the location of the peak of the luminance profile of the target plus noise). Position acuity is much less acute in the parafovea, and this is reflected in the reduced root efficiency (i.e., square root of efficiency) and the coarse classification images for peripheral position discrimination. The peripheral position template is a low spatial frequency template.

Discriminant Analysis↗
PubMed2002

Suppressive and facilitatory spatial interactions in foveal vision: foveal crowding is simple contrast masking.

Spatial interactions are a critical and ubiquitous feature of spatial vision. These interactions may be inhibitory (reducing sensitivity as occurs in crowding) or facilitatory (enhancing sensitivity). In this work, we had four goals. 1. To test the hypothesis that foveal crowding depends on target size by measuring the extent of crowding for novel targets that were limited in their spatial frequency content. We used a large range of target sizes and spatial frequencies. 2. To assess whether the critical spatial frequency model (Hess, Dakin, & Kapoor, 2000) provides a general model for foveal crowding. To test this model, we measured crowding for a direction-identification task that did not require judging the orientation of the gap. 3. To test the hypothesis that foveal crowding is simply contrast masking by remote flanks we measured and compared crowding in a direction-identification experiment with masking by remote flanks in a detection experiment. In each of the experiments, our targets and flanks were composed of Gabor features, thus allowing us to control the feature contrast, spatial frequency, and orientation. 4. To assess the relationship between suppressive and facilitatory spatial interactions in foveal vision. Our results show that (1) foveal crowding is proportional to feature size over the more than 50-fold range of target sizes that we examined. Over this large range, foveal crowding is scale invariant. Our results also show it is the size of the envelope (SD) rather than the carrier (SF) that determines the extent of crowding in the fovea. 2. Crowding that occurs in the direction-identification task is quite similar to crowding where orientation information is available. Thus we conclude that the critical spatial frequency model does not provide a general explanation for foveal crowding. 3. Threshold elevation for crowding is similar to threshold elevation for masking as predicted by our test-pedestal model. Thus we conclude that foveal crowding is simple contrast masking. 4. Based on our comparison of threshold changes in crowding and masking, we conclude that in foveal vision, the suppressive spatial interactions due to nearby flanks are similar in the two tasks. However, the facilitatory interactions are quite different. In the crowding task, we find very little evidence for facilitation by flankers, whereas in the detection task, we find strong facilitation. We suggest that facilitation of detection by remote flanks may be, at least in part, a consequence of uncertainty reduction.

Contrast Sensitivity↗