The effects of target borders on the ability of observers to resolve moving targets (Landolt Cs) under a range of conditions were examined. Contrary to reported findings with stationary targets, it was predicted that the presence of borders would improve acuity for slow-moving targets because (i) overall stimulus energy is kept relatively constant as target detail varies, and (ii) a low-spatial-frequency component is held constant as target detail varies. In an experiment in which a two-sided border (above and below the target) was used, the predicted beneficial effect of the border at slow speeds was obtained. The results are discussed in terms of practical implications for the assessment of dynamic visual acuity as well as the potential neural mechanisms underlying performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnstisS M, 1974“A chart demonstrating variations in acuity with retinal position”Vision Research14589–592
2.
BealsR PMayyasiA MTempletonA EJohnstonW L, 1971“The relationship between basketball shooting performance and certain visual attributes”American Journal of Optometry and Archives of American Academy of Optometry48585–590
3.
BrownB, 1972a“Resolution thresholds for moving targets at the fovea and in the peripheral retina”Vision Research12293–304
4.
BrownB, 1972b“The effect of target contrast variation on dynamic visual acuity and eye movements”Vision Research121213–1224
5.
BrownBAdamsA JHaegerstrom-PortnoyGJonesR TFlomM C, 1975“Effects of alcohol and marijuana on dynamic visual acuity: I. Threshold measurements”Perception & Psychophysics18441–446
6.
BurgA, 1966“Visual acuity as measured by dynamic and static tests: A comparative evaluation”Journal of Applied Psychology50460–466
7.
BurgAHulbertS, 1961“Dynamic visual acuity as related to age, sex, and static acuity”Journal of Applied Psychology45111–116
8.
CollewijnHTammingaE P, 1984“Human smooth pursuit and saccadic eye movements during voluntary pursuit of different target motions on different backgrounds”Journal of Physiology (London)351217–250
FalkowitzCMendelH, 1977“The role of visual skills in batting averages”Optometric Weekly6833–36
11.
GoodsonJ EMillerJ W, 1959“Dynamic visual acuity in an applied setting”Aerospace Medicine30755–763
12.
GoodsonJ EMorrisonT R, 1980Stimulus Determinants of Dynamic Visual Acuity. I. Background and Exploratory Data Technical Report NAMRL 1270, Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Pensacola, FL, USA
13.
GoodsonJ EMorrisonT R, 1981Stimulus Determinants of Dynamic Visual Acuity. II. Effects of Limiting Target Surround Technical Report NAMRL 1274, Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Pensacola, FL, USA
14.
JacobsR J, 1979“Visual resolution and contour interaction in the fovea and periphery”Vision Research191187–1195
15.
KohlPReichowAThompsonWWilierP, 1988“A comparative study of dynamic visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and reaction times between jet fighter pilots and optometry students”Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science29434
16.
LeighR JZeeD S, 1983The Neurology of Eye Movements (Philadelphia: F A Davis)
17.
LongG MGarveyP M, 1988“The effects of target wavelength on Dynamic Visual Acuity under photopic and scotopic viewing”Human Factors303–13
18.
LongG MPennD L, 1987“Dynamic visual acuity: Normative functions and practical implications”Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society25253–256
19.
LudvighE, 1949“Visual acuity while one is viewing a moving object”Archives of Ophthalmology4214–22
20.
LudvighEMillerJ W, 1953A Study of Dynamic Visual Acuity Technical Report NSAM-562, Naval School of Aviation Medicine, Pensacola, FL, USA
21.
LudvighEMillerJ W, 1958“Study of visual acuity during the ocular pursuit of moving test objects. I. Introduction”Journal of the Optical Society of America48799–802
22.
MillerJ WLudvighE J, 1962“The effect of relative motion on visual acuity”Survey of Ophthalmology783–116
23.
MorrisG SKreighbaumE, 1977“Dynamic visual acuity of varsity women volleyball and basketball players”Research Quarterly of the American Association of Health and Physical Education48480–483
24.
MorrisonT R, 1980A Review of Dynamic Visual Acuity NAMRL Monograph 28, Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Pensacola, FL, USA
25.
ReganD, 1982“Visual information channeling in normal and disordered vision”Psychological Review89407–444
26.
RobinsonD A, 1965“The mechanics of human smooth eye movements”Journal of Physiology (London)180569–591
27.
RodiekR W, 1979“Visual pathways”Annual Review of Neuroscience2193–225
28.
SandersonF HWhitingH T A, 1974“Dynamic visual acuity and performance in a catching task”Journal of Motor Behavior687–94
29.
SloanL L, 1980“Need for precise measures of acuity”Archives of Ophthalmology98286–290
30.
TolhurstD J, 1973“Separate channels for the analysis of the shape and movement of a moving visual stimulus”Journal of Physiology (London)231385–402
31.
TolhurstD J, 1975“Sustained and transient channels in human vision”Vision Research151151–1155
32.
TrachtmanJ N, 1973“The relationship between ocular motilities and batting average in Little Leaguers”American Journal of Optometry and Archives of American Academy of Optometry50914–919
33.
US National Research Concil, Committee on Vision, 1985Emergent Techniques for the Assessment of Visual Performance (Washington, DC: National Academy Press)
