00937002/85/6207—0427$02.00/0 AMERICAN JOURNAL or OPTOMETRY & PHYSIOLOGICAL OPTICS copyright © 1985 AMERICAN ACADEMY or OPTOMETRY | awards/honors A Vol. 62, No. 7, pp. 427-438 Printed in U. S.A. Prentice Award Lecture: A Simple Retinal Mechanism That Has Complex and Profound Effects on Perception TOM N. CORNSWEETq' School of Social Sciences, University of California, Irvine, California In the November 1984 issue of Scientific American, Lederman published an article called “The Value of Fundamental Science”; his first sentence says a lot of what I want to say. “One takes up fundamental science out of a sense of pure excitement, out of joy at enhancing human culture, out of awe at the heritage handed down by generations of masters and out of a need to publish first and become famous.“ The work I want to tell you about is exciting to me, and now, with this honor, I feel famous. It is unusual for a professional academy like this one, whose primary goal is and should be the advancement of a profession, to give its highest honor to people doing basic research. That says something special about this academy and its members. I feel highly honored by this award, and I am also very grateful. I suppose all of us like to think that the work we do is impor- tant, but not many of us are lucky enough to have somebody else say that they think what we do Is worth doing. That is very flattering and gratifying. Thank you. I would like to tell you about a theory of a Very Simple retinal mechanism that seems to explain many apparently complicated and un- related visual phenomena. I think it is interest- q18 because, even if the theory turns out to be ‘q0118 In the sense that perhaps there is no such mechanism actually in the retina, it does what 3“ 800d_theories do in that it reveals that what We previously thought were unrelated phenom- 9118 can all be manifestations of the same mech- T The Prentice Award Lecture, presented at the An- flufll Meeting of the American Academy of Optometry ‘HES; Louis, Missouri, December, 1984. ‘ ceived November 29, 1984. Pl‘-D-. Member of Faculty. anism; and, especially if some of the phenomena seemed complicated and the mechanism is sim- ple, then the world is easier to understand and our thinking is simplified. To me, that step in science, where a new theory seems to take a lot of messy pieces and melt them down to a single clear drop, is the essence of what is esthetically pleasing about science. (The next step, of course, is that your successors, or you if you’re lucky, look deeply into the drop and see a whole new set of messy pieces.) Most of the visual phenomena that I will talk about are probably familiar to you, but I will refresh your memory about them as we go along. They are light and dark adaptation, Weber’s law, Ricco’s law, brightness constancy, receptive field center-surround antagonism, Mach bands, and changes in acuity with luminance. Some of these phenomena are necessarily related to each other, in that if you have one, you almost have to have the other, and some are not necessarily related, but all of them can be explained by one simple retinal mechanism. And I would like to introduce the mechanism by talking about still another phenomenon that it explains, one that may actually be the fundamental reason why the mechanism evolved, and so may be the reason why all of the other phenomena occur. This fundamental phenomenon doesn’t have a name. It is the fact that people are a whole lot better at detecting objects in bright light than you would expect on the basis of their vision in dim light, and vice versa, that is, people do a whole lot better in dim light than you would expect them to do on the basis of how well they do in bright light. Let me explain that. A basic property of objects in the world is that they reflect fixed proportions of the light falling on them. Suppose your eyes were pointed at an 427
Read full abstract