Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Journal of Physiology logoLink to The Journal of Physiology
. 1973 Aug;233(1):143–156. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1973.sp010302

Background configuration and rod threshold

P Lennie, D I A MacLeod
PMCID: PMC1350544  PMID: 4759096

Abstract

1. This paper investigates the variation in rod threshold when a small test flash is seen against backgrounds of different sizes. Over a substantial range of luminances above absolute threshold, the test flash is less easily seen against small backgrounds than large. This confirms earlier results.

2. If an annular surround is added to a small circular background, threshold is reduced when background and annulus are equiluminous (uniform field), but rises rapidly as the annulus is made brighter or dimmer than the background. This cannot be explained by the threshold-elevating effects of light scattered on to the background from the surround, for threshold rises with annulus luminance faster than it does on uniform fields of equal luminance.

3. If the surround is not a complete annulus but a windmill-shaped cross, threshold is higher than on a uniform field, no matter what the windmill luminance. Thus it is not the addition of light per se to the surround which reduces threshold.

4. This conclusion is reinforced by the results of another experiment. The test flash is seen on a large uniform field. When superimposed on this field, a thin ring, light or dark, which causes only a small change in mean luminance, produces an appreciable rise in threshold.

5. The addition of an equiluminous red surround to a small red background so as to create a uniform field causes a marked drop in test flash threshold, but a scotopically equal blue surround, that creates a uniform field for rods, does not alter the threshold. Since the test flash is seen only by rods it follows that signals from cones can alter rod threshold.

6. Known or probable behaviour of retinal mechanisms cannot account for our results. All the operations which elevate threshold above its level on a large uniform field produce contours in the vicinity of the test flash. This we take as evidence that signals from the test stimulus are suppressed or reduced by other signals present only when the background is locally non-uniform.

Full text

PDF
143

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Alpern M., Rushton W. A., Torii S. The size of rod signals. J Physiol. 1970 Jan;206(1):193–208. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1970.sp009006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barlow H. B., Sakitt B. Doubts about scotopic interactions in stabilized vision. Vision Res. 1973 Feb;13(2):523–524. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(73)90136-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Blakemore C., Campbell F. W. Adaptation to spatial stimuli. J Physiol. 1969 Jan;200(1):11P–13P. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Blakemore C., Campbell F. W. On the existence of neurones in the human visual system selectively sensitive to the orientation and size of retinal images. J Physiol. 1969 Jul;203(1):237–260. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1969.sp008862. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cleland B. G., Enroth-cugell C. Quantitative aspects of sensitivity and summation in the cat retina. J Physiol. 1968 Sep;198(1):17–38. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1968.sp008591. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. HEINEMANN E. G. The relation of apparent brightness to the theshold for differences in luminance. J Exp Psychol. 1961 May;61:389–399. doi: 10.1037/h0047624. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Pantle A., Sekuler R. Size-detecting mechanisms in human vision. Science. 1968 Dec 6;162(3858):1146–1148. doi: 10.1126/science.162.3858.1146-a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. RUSHTON W. A. VISUAL ADAPTATION. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1965 Mar 16;162:20–46. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1965.0024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Teller D. Y., Andrews D. P., Barlow H. B. Local adaptation in stabilized vision. Vision Res. 1966 Dec;6(12):701–705. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(66)90081-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Teller D. Y., Gestrin P. J. Sensitization by annular surrounds: sensitization and dark adaptation. Vision Res. 1969 Dec;9(12):1481–1489. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(69)90064-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Teller D. Y. Increment thresholds on black bars. Vision Res. 1968 Jun;8(6):713–718. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(68)90045-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Teller D. Y., Matter C. F., Phillips W. D. Sensitization by annular surrounds: spatial summation properties. Vision Res. 1970 Jul;10(7):549–561. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(70)90049-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Westheimer G. Bleached rhodopsin and retinal interaction. J Physiol. 1968 Mar;195(1):97–105. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1968.sp008448. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Westheimer G. Rod-cone independence for sensitizing interaction in the human retina. J Physiol. 1970 Jan;206(1):109–116. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1970.sp009000. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Westheimer G. Spatial interaction in human cone vision. J Physiol. 1967 May;190(1):139–154. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1967.sp008198. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Westheimer G. Spatial interaction in the human retina during scotopic vision. J Physiol. 1965 Dec;181(4):881–894. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1965.sp007803. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Wyatt H. J. Scotopic vision: an unexpected threshold elevation produced by dark annuli. Vision Res. 1972 Dec;12(12):2147–2150. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(72)90064-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of Physiology are provided here courtesy of The Physiological Society

RESOURCES