Abstract

Metacontrast functions were obtained for three subjects using forced-choice and magnitude-estimation response measures, and for a fourth subject using forced choice alone. The functions from these two measures were in every case U shaped and did not differ significantly from each other, even though the stimuli used for each measure differed slightly, and the forced-choice study was done three months after the magnitude-estimation study. Thus, U-shaped metacontrast functions are not artifacts of subjective response criteria. The relative merits of the subjective and objective response indicators as measures of metacontrast are discussed.

© 1970 Optical Society of America

Effects of Surround Size and Luminance on Metacontrast*

Halsey H. Matteson
J. Opt. Soc. Am. 59(11) 1461-1468 (1969)

Effects of Surround Luminance on Perceptual Latency*

Halsey H. Matteson
J. Opt. Soc. Am. 60(8) 1125-1131 (1970)

Spatial Characteristics of Metacontrast*

Ronald Growney and Naomi Weisstein
J. Opt. Soc. Am. 62(5) 690-696 (1972)

Apparent Depth of Modulation as a Function of Frequency and Amplitude of Temporal Modulations of Luminance*

Lawrence E. Marks
J. Opt. Soc. Am. 60(7) 970-977 (1970)

Comparison of Two Measures of Metacontrast*

Thomas B. Flaherty and Halsey H. Matteson
J. Opt. Soc. Am. 61(6) 828-830 (1971)