September 2019
Volume 19, Issue 10
Open Access
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2019
Comparison of three methods for determining equi-luminance
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Jingyi He
    Department of Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston MA 02115
  • Yesenia Taveras Cruz
    Department of Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston MA 02115
  • Rhea T Eskew
    Department of Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston MA 02115
Journal of Vision September 2019, Vol.19, 70c. doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/19.10.70c
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Jingyi He, Yesenia Taveras Cruz, Rhea T Eskew; Comparison of three methods for determining equi-luminance. Journal of Vision 2019;19(10):70c. doi: https://doi.org/10.1167/19.10.70c.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Several methods have been used to determine the relative modulation of the L and M cones that minimizes luminance modulation, including the minimally-distinct border (MDB; Boynton, 1978), heterochromatic flicker photometry (HFP; Ives, 1912), and minimum motion (MM; Anstis & Cavanagh, 1983) techniques. When performed on a modern computer-driven display, MDB is the simplest to set up (code, calibrate, and run), MM is likely to be the easiest for naive observers to learn and perform, and HFP is intermediate on both of these dimensions. We compared the three techniques in terms of their variability across measurements, their agreement with one another, and their test-retest reliability. In all techniques, the ~2 deg stimuli were presented at the center of a uniform grey background (59 cd/m2). Observers used buttons to vary the stimulus angle in the (L, M) plane of cone contrast space – S cones were not modulated -- either at 25% or 50% of the maximum contrast available at each angle, to find the equilu-minant angle. In HFP, observers minimized apparent flicker of a square at 10.75 Hz. In MM, observers minimized the motion of a 2.5 cpd counterphase grating at 2 Hz. In MDB, observers attempted to minimize the distinctness of an ‘isolated edge’ (a horizontal step multiplied by a Gaussian; McLellan et al., 1994) in two variants: 500 ms flashes (MDB1), or steady presentation (MDB2). A second session was done at least a week after the first session. At all mean equiluminant settings, L and M contrasts were of opposite sign, as expected. Across observers, HFP produced the lowest |L/M| ratio (smallest equiluminant angle) while MDB1 and MDB2 gave somewhat larger |L/M| ratios. Inter-method correlation coefficients showed only moderate consistency across methods. MM and HFP showed high test-retest reliability while MDB1 did not. Additional comparisons will be discussed.

Acknowledgement: NIH Grant R01 EY023281 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×