Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Contrast adaptation may enhance contrast discrimination

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Spatial Vision
For more content, see Multisensory Research and Seeing and Perceiving.

Whether contrast adaptation may enhance contrast discrimination is a question that has remained largely unresolved because of conflicting empirical evidence. Greenlee and Heitger (1988), for example, reported that contrast discrimination may be enhanced after contrast adaptation, while Maattanen and Koenderink (1991) did not. This paper aimed to account for the different conclusions reached by these independent researchers by manipulations of key differences that exist between the two studies. It is shown that contrast discrimination may be enhanced after adaptation, but that these effects can vary markedly across subjects and test conditions. Enhancements in contrast discrimination are reported to be significant when adapting and testing at low levels of contrast, but just significant at higher levels of contrast. For high contrast signals, enhancements are shown to be independent of temporal frequency but dependent upon viewing conditions. Under binocular viewing conditions, enhancements in contrast discrimination thresholds are shown to be significantly higher than under monocular viewing conditions. It is suggested that the different conclusions reached by Greenlee and Heitger and by Maattanen and Koenderink may be explained by their respective differences in viewing conditions. The former study used binocular, while the latter study used monocular viewing with an occluding eyepatch.

10.1163/15685680260433904
/content/journals/10.1163/15685680260433904
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
6
3
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/15685680260433904
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/15685680260433904
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/15685680260433904
2002-11-01
2016-12-07

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    Spatial Vision — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation