Abstract
The masking of a sinusoidal test grating by contrast-modulated (CM) gratings could, in principle, be attributable to the presence of a distortion product, injected into the stimulus during some nonlinear transformation at an early level of visual processing (e.g. Nachmias, 1989 Vision Research 29 137-142). If so, CM gratings and luminance-modulated (LM) gratings of similar effective contrast and spatial frequency should mask the detection of sinusoids in a similar fashion. We compared the effects of masking by 1 cycle deg-1 CM gratings [both simple beats (8 + 9 cycles deg-1) and amplitude-modulated gratings (8 + 9 + 10 cycles deg-1)], with those of masking by 1 cycle deg-1 LM gratings of low contrast. We found that: (i) CM and low-contrast LM grating masks yielded similar spatial-frequency tuning functions around the modulation frequency of 1 cycle deg-1; (ii) low-contrast LM gratings masked the detection of test sinusoids in a highly phase-dependent fashion, while masking by CM gratings did not vary systematically with relative spatial phase. The results suggest that masking produced by CM gratings cannot simply be explained by the presence of a distortion product at the beat or modulation frequency.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
