Cargando…

Dynamics of contrast adaptation in central and peripheral vision

Adaptation aftereffects are generally stronger for peripheral than for foveal viewing. We examined whether there are also differences in the dynamics of visual adaptation in central and peripheral vision. We tracked the time course of contrast adaptation to binocularly presented Gabor patterns in bo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gao, Yi, Webster, Michael A., Jiang, Fang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6602361/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31251807
http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/19.6.23
_version_ 1783431370028089344
author Gao, Yi
Webster, Michael A.
Jiang, Fang
author_facet Gao, Yi
Webster, Michael A.
Jiang, Fang
author_sort Gao, Yi
collection PubMed
description Adaptation aftereffects are generally stronger for peripheral than for foveal viewing. We examined whether there are also differences in the dynamics of visual adaptation in central and peripheral vision. We tracked the time course of contrast adaptation to binocularly presented Gabor patterns in both the central visual field (within 5°) and in the periphery (beyond 10° eccentricity) using a yes/no detection task to monitor contrast thresholds. Consistent with previous studies, sensitivity losses were stronger in the periphery than in the center when adapting to equivalent high contrast (90% contrast) patterns. The time course of the threshold changes was fitted with separate exponential functions to estimate the time constants during the adapt and post-adapt phases. When adapting to equivalent high contrast, adaptation effects built up and decayed more slowly in the periphery compared with central adaptation. Surprisingly, the aftereffect in the periphery did not decay completely to the baseline within the monitored post-adapt period (400 s), and instead asymptoted to a higher level than for central adaptation. Even when contrast was reduced to one-third (30% contrast) of the central contrast, peripheral adaptation remained stronger and decayed more slowly. This slower dynamic was also confirmed at suprathreshold test contrasts by tracking tilt-aftereffects with a 2AFC orientation discrimination task. Our results indicate that the dynamics of contrast adaptation differ between central and peripheral vision, with the periphery adapting not only more strongly but also more slowly, and provide another example of potential qualitative processing differences between central and peripheral vision.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6602361
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66023612019-07-10 Dynamics of contrast adaptation in central and peripheral vision Gao, Yi Webster, Michael A. Jiang, Fang J Vis Article Adaptation aftereffects are generally stronger for peripheral than for foveal viewing. We examined whether there are also differences in the dynamics of visual adaptation in central and peripheral vision. We tracked the time course of contrast adaptation to binocularly presented Gabor patterns in both the central visual field (within 5°) and in the periphery (beyond 10° eccentricity) using a yes/no detection task to monitor contrast thresholds. Consistent with previous studies, sensitivity losses were stronger in the periphery than in the center when adapting to equivalent high contrast (90% contrast) patterns. The time course of the threshold changes was fitted with separate exponential functions to estimate the time constants during the adapt and post-adapt phases. When adapting to equivalent high contrast, adaptation effects built up and decayed more slowly in the periphery compared with central adaptation. Surprisingly, the aftereffect in the periphery did not decay completely to the baseline within the monitored post-adapt period (400 s), and instead asymptoted to a higher level than for central adaptation. Even when contrast was reduced to one-third (30% contrast) of the central contrast, peripheral adaptation remained stronger and decayed more slowly. This slower dynamic was also confirmed at suprathreshold test contrasts by tracking tilt-aftereffects with a 2AFC orientation discrimination task. Our results indicate that the dynamics of contrast adaptation differ between central and peripheral vision, with the periphery adapting not only more strongly but also more slowly, and provide another example of potential qualitative processing differences between central and peripheral vision. The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2019-06-28 /pmc/articles/PMC6602361/ /pubmed/31251807 http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/19.6.23 Text en Copyright 2019 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
spellingShingle Article
Gao, Yi
Webster, Michael A.
Jiang, Fang
Dynamics of contrast adaptation in central and peripheral vision
title Dynamics of contrast adaptation in central and peripheral vision
title_full Dynamics of contrast adaptation in central and peripheral vision
title_fullStr Dynamics of contrast adaptation in central and peripheral vision
title_full_unstemmed Dynamics of contrast adaptation in central and peripheral vision
title_short Dynamics of contrast adaptation in central and peripheral vision
title_sort dynamics of contrast adaptation in central and peripheral vision
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6602361/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31251807
http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/19.6.23
work_keys_str_mv AT gaoyi dynamicsofcontrastadaptationincentralandperipheralvision
AT webstermichaela dynamicsofcontrastadaptationincentralandperipheralvision
AT jiangfang dynamicsofcontrastadaptationincentralandperipheralvision