This work discusses the relative significance of optical and neural mechanisms in letter contrast sensitivity under different conditions of environmental lighting. A study was carried out on 26 eyes with normal ocular health. Sixteen lighting conditions were obtained by combining different test luminances (from 10 cd/m2 to 600 cd/m2) and surround luminances (from 1 cd/m2 to 600 cd/m2). The results reveal a significant influence of optical factors (pupil size variations and glare effects) on contrast sensitivity when surround luminance changes, and a dominance of neural effects when test luminance changes. Furthermore, test size and illumination conditions are identified for which letter threshold contrasts are not sensitive to surround luminance changes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SavageGLBanksMS. Scotopic visual efficiency: Constraints by optics, receptor properties, and rod pooling. Vision Research1992; 32: 645–656.
2.
LosadaMANavarroRSantamaríaJ. Relative contributions of optical and neural limitations to human contrast sensitivity at different luminance levels. Vision Research1993; 33: 2321–2336.
3.
Jing-JingGEZhao-QiW. Luminance effects on neural mechanism at photopic level. Chinese Physics Letters2011; 28: 054206–054210.
4.
BlackwellHR. Contrast threshold of the human eye. Journal of the Optical Society of America1946; 36: 624–643.
5.
KimYJKimH. Spatial luminance contrast sensitivity: Effects of surround. Journal of the Optical Society of Korea2010; 14: 152–162.
6.
PuellMCPalomoCSánchez-RamosCVillenaC. Normal values for photopic and mesopic letter contrast sensitivity. Journal of Refractive Surgery2004; 20: 484–488.
7.
BlommaertFJJTimmersH. Letter recognition at low contrast levels: effects of letter size. Perception1987; 16: 421–432.
8.
KhananiAMBrownSMXuXT. Normal values for a clinical test of letter-recognition contrast thresholds. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery2004; 30: 2377–2382.
9.
VizmanosJGde la FuenteIMatesanzBMAparicioJA. Influence of surround illumination on pupil size and contrast sensitivity. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics2004; 24: 464–468.
10.
CoxMJNormanJHNormanP. The effect of surround luminance on measurements of contrast sensitivity. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics1999; 19: 401–414.
11.
AparicioJAArranzIMatesanzBMVizmanosJGPadiernaLGonzálezVGMarSMenéndezJAIssolioL. Quantitative and functional influence of surround luminance on the letter contrast sensitivity function. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics2010; 30: 188–199.
12.
DietzeHHCoxMJ. Correcting ocular spherical aberration with soft contact lenses. Journal of the Optical Society of America2004; 21: 473–485.
13.
ArranzIMatesanzBMde la RosaCMenéndezJAIssolioLMarSAparicioJA. Influence of spectral distribution on clinical contrast sensitivity. Lighting Research and Technology2012; 44: 364–376.
14.
National Academy of Science, National Research Council (NAS-NRC). Committee on Vision. Recommended standard procedures for the clinical measurement and specification of visual acuity. Report of Working Group 39. Advances in Ophthalmology1983; 41: 103–148.
15.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO: 8596. Ophthalmic Optics -Visual Acuity Testing –Standard Optotype and its Presentation. ISO:8596:1996. Madrid: AENOR, 1996.
16.
American National Standards Institute (ANSI). ANSI Z80.21-1992 (R2004). General Purpose Clinical Visual Acuity Charts. Optical Laboratories Association, ANSI, New York, NY, 2004.
17.
BermanMNavvabMMartinMJSheedyJTithofW. A comparison of traditional and high colour temperature lighting on the near acuity of elementary school children. Lighting Research and Technology2006; 38: 41–52.
18.
FotiosSAChealC. Lighting for subsidiary streets: investigation of lamps of different SPD. Part 1—Visual performance. Lighting Research and Technology2007; 39: 215–232.
19.
BoycePRAkashiYHunterCMBulloughJD. The impact of spectral power distribution on the performance of an achromatic visual task. Lighting Research and Technology2003; 41: 229–243.
20.
PelliDGRobsonJGWilkinsAJ. The design of a new letter chart for measuring contrast sensitivity. Clinical Vision Sciences1988; 2: 187–199.
21.
StanleyPADaviesAK. The effect of field of view size on steady-state pupil diameter. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics1995; 15: 601–603.
22.
KarakostaAVassilakiMPlainisSElfadlNHTsilimbarisMMoschandreasJ. Choice of analytic approach for eye-specific outcomes: 1 Eye or 2?American Journal of Ophthalmology2012; 153: 571–579.
23.
MajajNJPelliDGKurshanPPalomaresM. The role of spatial frequency channels in letter identification. Vision Research2002; 42: 1165–1184.
24.
ArtalPNavarroR. Monochromatic modulation transfer function of the human eye for different pupil diameters: An analytical expression. Journal of the Optical Society of America1994; 11: 246–249.
25.
Adrian W, Topalova R. Transient adaptation process. A model to predict its effects on vision: Proceedings of the CIE 22nd Session 2. Melbourne, Australia, 1991: 121–133.
26.
Barten PGJ. Model for the spatial contrast sensitivity of the eye. Contrast Sensitivity of the Human Eye and Its Effects on Image Quality. Bellingham WA: SPIE Optical Engineering Press, 1999: 25–64.
27.
LeggeGEPelliDGRubinGSSchleskeMM. Psychophysics of reading-I. Normal vision. Vision Research1985; 25: 239–252.
28.
PetkovNWestenbergMA. Suppression of contour perception by band-limited noise and its relation to nonclassical receptive field inhibition. Biological Cybernetics2003; 88: 236–246.
29.
CampbellFWGubischRW. Optical image quality of the human eye. The Journal of Physiology1966; 186: 558–578.
30.
SloaneMEOwsleyCJacksonCA. Aging and luminance-adaptation effects on spatial contrast sensitivity. Journal of the Optical Society of America A1988; 5: 2181–2190.
LahavKLevkovitch-VerbinkHBelkinMGlovinskyYPolatU. Reduced mesopic and photopic foveal contrast sensitivity in glaucoma. Archives of Ophthalmology2011; 129: 16–22.
33.
GualtieriMBandeiraMHamerRDDamicoFMMouraALAVenturaDF. Contrast sensitivity mediated by inferred magno- and parvocellular pathways in type 2 diabetics with and without nonproliferative retinopathy. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science2011; 52: 1151–1155.
34.
FrancoASSilvaACCarvalhoASMacedoASLiraM. Comparison of the VCTS-6500 and the CSV-1000 tests for visual contrast sensitivity testing. Neurotoxicology2010; 31: 758–761.
35.
DurstWPetersTWilhelmB. Testing acuity and contrast vision under standardised lighting conditions. British Journal of Ophthalmology2011; 95: 1506–1508.
