Revisiting spatial vision: toward a unifying model

We report contrast detection, contrast increment, contrast masking, orientation discrimination, and spatial frequency discrimination thresholds for spatially localized stimuli at 4° of eccentricity. Our stimulus geometry emphasizes interactions among overlapping visual filters and differs from that used in previous threshold measurements, which also admits interactions among distant filters. We quantitatively account for all measurements by simulating a small population of overlapping visual filters interacting through divisive inhibition. We depart from previous models of this kind in the parameters of divisive inhibition and in using a statistically efficient decision stage based on Fisher information. The success of this unified account suggests that, contrary to Bowne [Vision Res. 30, 449 (1990)], spatial vision thresholds reflect a single level of processing, perhaps as early as primary visual cortex

Sex-related differences in chromatic sensitivity

Generally women are believed to be more discriminating than men in the use of colour names and this is often taken to imply superior colour vision. However, if both X-chromosome linked colour deficient males (~8%) and females (<1%) as well as heterozygote female carriers (~15%) are excluded from comparisons, then differences between men and women in red-green colour discrimination have been reported as not being significant (e.g., Pickford, 1944; Hood et al., 2006). We re-examined this question by assessing the performance of 150 males and 150 females on the Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) test (Rodriguez-Carmona, 2005). This is a sensitive test that yields small colour detection thresholds. The test employs direction-specific, moving, chromatic stimuli embedded in a background of random, dynamic, luminance contrast noise. A four-alternative, forced-choice procedure is employed to measure the subject’s thresholds for detection of colour signals in 16 directions in colour space, while ensuring that the subject cannot make use of any residual luminance contrast signals. In addition, we measured the Rayleigh anomaloscope matches in a subgroup of 111 males and 114 females. All the age-matched males (30.8 ± 9.7) and females (26.7 ± 8.8) had normal colour vision as diagnosed by a battery of conventional colour vision tests. Females with known colour deficient relatives were excluded from the study. Comparisons between the male and female groups revealed no significant differences in anomaloscope midpoints (p=0.709), but a significant difference in matching ranges (p=0.040); females on average tended to have a larger mean range (4.11) than males (3.75). Females also had significantly higher CAD thresholds than males along the red-green (p=0.0004), but not along the yellow-blue discrimination axis. The differences between males and females in red-green discrimination may be related to the heterozygosity in X-linked cone photopigment expression common among females