IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0150942.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Do Contrast Threshold Equivalent Noise Studies Actually Measure? Noise vs. Nonlinearity in Different Masking Paradigms

Author

Listed:
  • Alex S Baldwin
  • Daniel H Baker
  • Robert F Hess

Abstract

The internal noise present in a linear system can be quantified by the equivalent noise method. By measuring the effect that applying external noise to the system’s input has on its output one can estimate the variance of this internal noise. By applying this simple “linear amplifier” model to the human visual system, one can entirely explain an observer’s detection performance by a combination of the internal noise variance and their efficiency relative to an ideal observer. Studies using this method rely on two crucial factors: firstly that the external noise in their stimuli behaves like the visual system’s internal noise in the dimension of interest, and secondly that the assumptions underlying their model are correct (e.g. linearity). Here we explore the effects of these two factors while applying the equivalent noise method to investigate the contrast sensitivity function (CSF). We compare the results at 0.5 and 6 c/deg from the equivalent noise method against those we would expect based on pedestal masking data collected from the same observers. We find that the loss of sensitivity with increasing spatial frequency results from changes in the saturation constant of the gain control nonlinearity, and that this only masquerades as a change in internal noise under the equivalent noise method. Part of the effect we find can be attributed to the optical transfer function of the eye. The remainder can be explained by either changes in effective input gain, divisive suppression, or a combination of the two. Given these effects the efficiency of our observers approaches the ideal level. We show the importance of considering these factors in equivalent noise studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Alex S Baldwin & Daniel H Baker & Robert F Hess, 2016. "What Do Contrast Threshold Equivalent Noise Studies Actually Measure? Noise vs. Nonlinearity in Different Masking Paradigms," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-25, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0150942
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150942
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0150942
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0150942&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0150942?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel H Baker, 2013. "What Is the Primary Cause of Individual Differences in Contrast Sensitivity?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-9, July.
    2. Keith A May & Joshua A Solomon, 2013. "Four Theorems on the Psychometric Function," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-34, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0150942. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.