Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T19:08:53.986Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Foveal and extra-foveal influences on rod hue biases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 September 2006

LAURA P. THOMAS  and
STEVEN L. BUCK
LAURA P. THOMAS
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Washington, Seattle, Washington
STEVEN L. BUCK
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Washington, Seattle, Washington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Green, blue and short-wavelength-red rod hue biases are strongest and most reliable with large, dimly-mesopic, extra-foveal stimuli but tend to diminish when stimuli are confined to a small area of the central fovea. This study explores how the stimulation of foveal and extra-foveal areas interact in determining rod hue biases, and whether large stimuli are as effective for revealing rod hue biases when foveally centered as when eccentrically centered. We assessed rod influence by measuring wavelengths of unique green and unique yellow (with 1-s duration, 1 log scot td stimuli and a staircase procedure) under bleached and dark-adapted conditions. We measured unique hues with foveally centered 2°- and 7.4°-diameter disks, a 7.4° (outer) × 2° (inner) diameter annulus, and a 7°-eccentric, 7.4°-diameter disk. The rod green bias (shift of unique yellow locus) was typically <10 nm and remained fairly constant across spatial configurations, indicating no special foveal influence. The rod blue bias (shift of unique green) varied more among observers and spatial configurations, reaching up to 47 nm. However, stimuli covering the fovea typically produced no rod blue bias. Thus, the present results add differences in spatial dependence (i.e., foveal/extra-foveal interaction) between green and blue rod biases to previously demonstrated differences (e.g., differences in amount of light level dependence, in time course and in the spectral range influenced by each bias).

Keywords

Human color visionRod-cone interactionFovea/extra-fovea interaction
Type
ROD-CONE INTERACTION
Information
Visual Neuroscience , Volume 23 , Issue 3-4 , May 2006 , pp. 539 - 542
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Buck, S. (1997). Influence of rod signals on hue perception: Evidence from successive scotopic color contrast. Vision Research 37, 1295–1301.Google Scholar
Buck, S. (2001). What is the hue of rod vision? Color Research & Application 26 (Suppl), S57–S59.Google Scholar
Buck, S.L. & Knight, R.F. (2003). Stimulus duration affects rod influence on hue perception. In Normal and Defective Colour Vision, eds. Mollon, J.D., Pokorny, J. & Knoblauch, K., pp. 177–184. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Buck, S.L., Knight, R.F., & Bechtold, J. (2000). Opponent-color models and the influence of rod signals on the loci of unique hues. Vision Research 40, 3333–3344.Google Scholar
Buck, S., Knight, R., Fowler, G., & Hunt, B. (1998). Rod influence on hue-scaling functions. Vision Research 38, 3259–3263.Google Scholar
Buck, S.L., Thomas, L.P., Hillyer, N., & Samuelson, E.M. (2006). Do rods influence the hue of foveal stimuli? Visual Neuroscience 23, 519–523.Google Scholar
Curcio, C.A., Sloan, K.R., Kalina, R.E., & Hendrickson, A.E. (1990). Human photoreceptor topography. The Journal of Comparative Neurology 292, 497–523.Google Scholar
Diller, L., Packer, O.S., Verweij, J., McMahon, M.J., Williams, D.R., & Dacey, D.M. (2004). L and M cone contributions to the midget and parasol ganglion cell receptive fields of macaque monkey retina. Journal of Neuroscience 24, 1079–1088.Google Scholar
Osterberg, G. (1935). Topography of the layer of rods and cones in the human retina. Acta Ophthalmologica (Suppl) 6, 1–102.Google Scholar
Thomas, L.P. & Buck, S.L. (2004). Generality of rod hue biases with smaller, brighter, and photopically specified stimuli. Visual Neuroscience 21, 257–262.Google Scholar