The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
1958
DOI: 10.1364/josa.48.000392
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Summated Response of the Retina to Light Entering Different Parts of the Pupil*

Abstract: To my wife and parents without whose loyalty, encouragement and affection, past, present and future achievement could not have been contemplated* To Dr. Glenn Fry, my graduate adviser, for the untold hours of guidance, and sincere advice, and the many helpful hints and ideas, which have made my graduate training and dissertation so rich and rewarding* To ray subjects,

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
42
0

Year Published

1958
1958
2009
2009

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
3
42
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The significant feature of the data is that there is no comparable decrease for the ramp stimuli, even though both overall width W 2 and apparent width were increased. Ramp stimuli have been found perceptually dimmer and less visible than step stimuli (Enoch, 1958;Thomas & Kovar, 1965). Apparently, this reduction in visibility counteracted the area-intensity relationship seen in the data for the step stimuli.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 76%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The significant feature of the data is that there is no comparable decrease for the ramp stimuli, even though both overall width W 2 and apparent width were increased. Ramp stimuli have been found perceptually dimmer and less visible than step stimuli (Enoch, 1958;Thomas & Kovar, 1965). Apparently, this reduction in visibility counteracted the area-intensity relationship seen in the data for the step stimuli.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…Another type of explanation is possible, however, that involves spatial interactions and their effects either upon the distribution of sensation magnitudes (von Bekesy, 1960) or upon the determination of which of several receptive-field mechanisms responds to the stimulus (Thomas, 1968b;Thomas, Rourke, & Wilder, 1968). The threshold explanation is perhaps more parsimonious, but the interaction hypotheses have the advantage in that they can also account for the changes in brightness and detectability that accompany changes in the sharpness of edge-gradients (Enoch, 1958;Thomas & Kovar, 1965). In the present study, the perceived widths of foveally viewed stimuli with ramp-like edges were measured by a size-matching procedure.…”
mentioning
confidence: 86%
“…[39][40][41]. In these studies, duration of recovery of photoreceptor orientation (SCE x-peak) from this source of traction was found to be of the order of a minute or perhaps a bit longer.…”
Section: The Shorter Set Of Recovery Responsesmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…This reducesthe effect of small eye movements as the rate of change of luminance is less across a blurred contour than it is across a sharp one. There are also data from Enoch (1958) and Thomas and Kovar (1965) showing that perceived figure-ground contrast is reduced as the sharpness of the boundary separating figure from ground is decreased.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%