Binocular Summation of Subliminal Repetitive Visual Stimulation*

Peckham, Robert H.; Hart, William M.

doi:10.1016/0002-9394(60)91623-8

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the adequacy of this model has been questioned on logical grounds (Eriksen & Lappin, 1965), while very recent empirical evidence (Campbell & Green, 1965) clearly points to summation effects in excess of what should be expected from probability summation. This is in accord with findings indicating that impulses from the two eyes cooperate in determining the detectability of light (Collier, 1954;Matin, 1962), its apparent brightness (Leibowitz & Walker, 1956), and the detectability of flicker (Peckham & Hart, 1960). This conforms with Wiesel's (1962, 1965) observations that about 85% of those cells in the visual cortex which are active in the detection of form manifest binocular synergy.…”

supporting

confidence: 90%

Critical duration for the resolution of form: Centrally or peripherally determined?

Kahneman¹,

Norman²,

Kubovy³

1967

Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bloch's law is shown to hold for a visual acuity task with monocular and binocular viewing as well as in a condition where the target was presented to the right and left eyes in immediate succession. The critical duration (tc) in the latter condition was found to be approximately double the t c in the other experimental conditions. It is concluded that t c for the resolution of form is not determined at a visual station where binocular summation occurs, i.e., a station in the visual cortex. Moreover, the hypothesis that t c corresponds to a central "moment" fails to be supported/

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 90%

Critical duration for the resolution of form: Centrally or peripherally determined?

Kahneman¹,

Norman²,

Kubovy³

1967

Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1934) and has been found to be greater than that predicted on the basis of probability summation (peckham & Hart, 1960). Once again, the difference between monocular and binocular CFF invariably has been greater than the difference reported by Sherrington. A comparatively recent development in research on flicker fusion involves the u~of sinusoidally modulated light signals whose mean luminance remains constant while varying in Michelson contrast.…”

Section: Flicker Fusion Thresholdmentioning

confidence: 64%

The psychophysical inquiry into binocular summation

Blake

Fox

1973

Perception & Psychophysics

282

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experiments that compare monocular and binocular visual performance of human psychophysical Os on a variety of visual tasks are reviewed, The review attempts to include all experiments published in English in this century, excluding work on stereopsis, rivalry, and evoked potentials, The concept of probability summation as a baseline for assessing the presence of neural summation is discussed, and the assumptions of several models for estimating probability summation are considered. Experiments are classified in terms of visual task, major categories being increment detection, flicker fusion, brightness magnitude, and contour resolution. A major conclusion is that binocular performance is superior for essentially all task categories and in most cases by a magnitude greater than that predicted by appropriate probability summation models.The cardinal feature of the binocular visual system in man is the unification of the two separate monocular views into a binocular cyclopean view that betrays little trace of its monocular origins. Relatively little is known about the mechanism responsible for unification, although an examination of the physiology of the visual system reveals a number of features that seem expressly designed to promote unification. Some of the more prominent features are the partial crossing of the optic tracts at the optic chiasma and the elaborate system for the maintenance of conjugate eye movements. The existence of these features in man, and in binocular vertebrates in general, suggests an adaptive function of binocularity of sufficient magnitude to justify the survival of this complicated physiological organization. Yet the immediate advantage of having two eyes functioning as one is not obvious. The simple experiment of closing one eye does not result in any dramatic change in the appearance of the visual world. Rather, only by more stringent experimentation are the subtle advantages of binocularly joined eyes revealed.The purpose of this paper is to review those experiments undertaken in the 20th century that have compared monocular and binocular performance on a variety of visual tasks. The rubric under which such experiments are typically grouped is "binocular summation." These experiments compare the relative performance on some visual task (such as detection or form resolution) by a human S using one and both eyes. In the literature, this kind of inquiry into binocular vision is treated separately from investigations of stereopsis and of binocular rivalry; following that distinction, the voluminous research on these binocular phenomena is not included. A further exclusion is data

show abstract

“…Second, as mentioned earlier, the results o f many previous studies that seemed to indicate redundancy gains are inconclusive because of their failure to consider false alarms (e.g., Collier, 1954;Peckham & Hart, 1959, 1960Pirenne, 1943). Even when false alarms were recorded in compound detection tasks (e.g., King-Smith & Kulikowski, 1975;Sachs et al" 1971), however, they were often analyzed by applying one and the same "correction for guessing" for single and double channel conditions alike.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, some studies that used eq. (1.a) to account for their results did not use blank trials to obtain false alarm rates at all (e.g., Pirenne, 1943; Peckham & Hart, 1959, 1960; Collier, 1954), and very few studies obtained and reported separate false alarm rates for the single versus double channel conditions. This makes it difficult to evaluate directly whether (or to what degree) the observed increases in hit rate with more channels actually reflect an improvement in overall sensitivity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

When less equals more: Probability summation without sensitivity improvement.

Schwarz

Miller

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many perceptual and cognitive tasks permit or require the integrated cooperation of specialized sensory channels, detectors, or other functionally separate units. In compound detection or discrimination tasks, 1 prominent general mechanism to model the combination of the output of different processing channels is probability summation. The classical example is the binocular summation model of Pirenne (1943), according to which a weak visual stimulus is detected if at least 1 of the 2 eyes detects this stimulus; as we review briefly, exactly the same reasoning is applied in numerous other fields. It is generally accepted that this mechanism necessarily predicts performance based on 2 (or more) channels to be superior to single channel performance, because 2 separate channels provide "2 chances" to succeed with the task. We argue that this reasoning is misleading because it neglects the increased opportunity with 2 channels not just for hits but also for false alarms and that there may well be no redundancy gain at all when performance is measured in terms of receiver operating characteristic curves. We illustrate and support these arguments with a visual detection experiment involving different spatial uncertainty conditions. Our arguments and findings have important implications for all models that, in one way or another, rest on, or incorporate, the notion of probability summation for the analysis of detection tasks, 2-alternative forced-choice tasks, and psychometric functions.

show abstract

Binocular Summation of Subliminal Repetitive Visual Stimulation*

Cited by 6 publications

References 9 publications

Critical duration for the resolution of form: Centrally or peripherally determined?

Critical duration for the resolution of form: Centrally or peripherally determined?

The psychophysical inquiry into binocular summation

When less equals more: Probability summation without sensitivity improvement.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About