Why is second-order vision less efficient than first-order vision?

Velitchko Manahilov, William A. Simpson, Julie Calvert

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Research has shown that the sensitivity to second-order modulations of carrier contrast is lower than that to first-order luminance modulations stimuli. We sought to compare the efficiency of processing first- and second-order information. Employing a phase-discrimination paradigm we found that when humans were given sufficient a priori information of signal parameters they detected both luminance and contrast modulations of 0.6 and 2 c/deg by a phase-sensitive algorithm. The overall detection efficiency for second-order patterns, however, was lower that that for first-order stimuli. To study the factors which limit the efficiency of first- and second-order vision, we measured detection performance for luminance and contrast modulations of 0.6 and 2 c/deg embedded in Gaussian noise. The results showed that the detection of second-order patterns had lower sampling efficiency and higher additive internal noise as compared to the detection of first-order stimuli. Classification images for detecting contrast modulations of 2 c/deg resembled the side-band component of the contrast modulations which suggests that human observers may detect contrast modulations of a sinusoidal carrier using first-order luminance channels. The lower sensitivity of the mechanism detecting second-order patterns might be due to higher levels of additive internal noise and lower sampling efficiency than those of the mechanism analysing first-order patterns.

Original languageEnglish
JournalVision Research
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2005

Fingerprint

Noise
Research

Keywords

  • vision sciences
  • efficiency
  • Second-order vision
  • noise

Cite this

Manahilov, Velitchko ; Simpson, William A. ; Calvert, Julie. / Why is second-order vision less efficient than first-order vision?. In: Vision Research. 2005.
@article{c5c9c8f497be483a90cf0d93a354e1f3,
title = "Why is second-order vision less efficient than first-order vision?",
abstract = "Research has shown that the sensitivity to second-order modulations of carrier contrast is lower than that to first-order luminance modulations stimuli. We sought to compare the efficiency of processing first- and second-order information. Employing a phase-discrimination paradigm we found that when humans were given sufficient a priori information of signal parameters they detected both luminance and contrast modulations of 0.6 and 2 c/deg by a phase-sensitive algorithm. The overall detection efficiency for second-order patterns, however, was lower that that for first-order stimuli. To study the factors which limit the efficiency of first- and second-order vision, we measured detection performance for luminance and contrast modulations of 0.6 and 2 c/deg embedded in Gaussian noise. The results showed that the detection of second-order patterns had lower sampling efficiency and higher additive internal noise as compared to the detection of first-order stimuli. Classification images for detecting contrast modulations of 2 c/deg resembled the side-band component of the contrast modulations which suggests that human observers may detect contrast modulations of a sinusoidal carrier using first-order luminance channels. The lower sensitivity of the mechanism detecting second-order patterns might be due to higher levels of additive internal noise and lower sampling efficiency than those of the mechanism analysing first-order patterns.",
keywords = "vision sciences, efficiency, Second-order vision, noise",
author = "Velitchko Manahilov and Simpson, {William A.} and Julie Calvert",
note = "Originally published in: Vision Research (2005), 45 (17), pp.2759-2772.",
year = "2005",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.visres.2005.06.004",
language = "English",
journal = "Vision Research",
issn = "0042-6989",
publisher = "Elsevier Ltd",

}

Why is second-order vision less efficient than first-order vision? / Manahilov, Velitchko; Simpson, William A.; Calvert, Julie.

In: Vision Research, 01.10.2005.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why is second-order vision less efficient than first-order vision?

AU - Manahilov, Velitchko

AU - Simpson, William A.

AU - Calvert, Julie

N1 - Originally published in: Vision Research (2005), 45 (17), pp.2759-2772.

PY - 2005/10/1

Y1 - 2005/10/1

N2 - Research has shown that the sensitivity to second-order modulations of carrier contrast is lower than that to first-order luminance modulations stimuli. We sought to compare the efficiency of processing first- and second-order information. Employing a phase-discrimination paradigm we found that when humans were given sufficient a priori information of signal parameters they detected both luminance and contrast modulations of 0.6 and 2 c/deg by a phase-sensitive algorithm. The overall detection efficiency for second-order patterns, however, was lower that that for first-order stimuli. To study the factors which limit the efficiency of first- and second-order vision, we measured detection performance for luminance and contrast modulations of 0.6 and 2 c/deg embedded in Gaussian noise. The results showed that the detection of second-order patterns had lower sampling efficiency and higher additive internal noise as compared to the detection of first-order stimuli. Classification images for detecting contrast modulations of 2 c/deg resembled the side-band component of the contrast modulations which suggests that human observers may detect contrast modulations of a sinusoidal carrier using first-order luminance channels. The lower sensitivity of the mechanism detecting second-order patterns might be due to higher levels of additive internal noise and lower sampling efficiency than those of the mechanism analysing first-order patterns.

AB - Research has shown that the sensitivity to second-order modulations of carrier contrast is lower than that to first-order luminance modulations stimuli. We sought to compare the efficiency of processing first- and second-order information. Employing a phase-discrimination paradigm we found that when humans were given sufficient a priori information of signal parameters they detected both luminance and contrast modulations of 0.6 and 2 c/deg by a phase-sensitive algorithm. The overall detection efficiency for second-order patterns, however, was lower that that for first-order stimuli. To study the factors which limit the efficiency of first- and second-order vision, we measured detection performance for luminance and contrast modulations of 0.6 and 2 c/deg embedded in Gaussian noise. The results showed that the detection of second-order patterns had lower sampling efficiency and higher additive internal noise as compared to the detection of first-order stimuli. Classification images for detecting contrast modulations of 2 c/deg resembled the side-band component of the contrast modulations which suggests that human observers may detect contrast modulations of a sinusoidal carrier using first-order luminance channels. The lower sensitivity of the mechanism detecting second-order patterns might be due to higher levels of additive internal noise and lower sampling efficiency than those of the mechanism analysing first-order patterns.

KW - vision sciences

KW - efficiency

KW - Second-order vision

KW - noise

U2 - 10.1016/j.visres.2005.06.004

DO - 10.1016/j.visres.2005.06.004

M3 - Article

JO - Vision Research

JF - Vision Research

SN - 0042-6989

ER -