Elsevier

Vision Research

Volume 34, Issue 12, June 1994, Pages 1575-1583
Vision Research

Suprathreshold contrast sensitivity in experimentally strabismic monkeys

https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(94)90114-7Get rights and content

Abstract

Human strabismic amblyopes show deficits in spatial vision that can be revealed in a variety of visual tasks. In particular, they show a reduced sensitivity to contrast for a wide range of spatial frequencies. The ability of Strabismic amblyopes to process contrast information at levels well above detection threshold is less well understood and somewhat controversial. In the course of investigating the neural basis of strabismic amblyopia we studied contrast processing both at and above detection threshold in experimentally Strabismic monkeys (Macaca nemestrina). First we trained them to perform a contrastdetection task and measured their contrast sensitivity for a wide range of spatial frequencies. Then we trained them todiscriminate between two gratings that were identical except for their contrast. We show that these monkeys exhibit deficits in both tasks. The deficits in the contrast discrimination task cannot be solely attributed to their deficit at threshold.

Reference (42)

  • MaccanaF. et al.

    Contrast and phase processing in amblyopia

    Vision Research

    (1986)
  • NachmiasJ. et al.

    Grating contrast: Discrimination may be better than detection

    Vision Research

    (1974)
  • SmithE.L. et al.

    Contrast increment thresholds of rhesus monkeys

    Vision Research

    (1982)
  • SireteanuR. et al.

    Binocular interaction in the peripheral visual field of humans with strabismic and anisometropic amblyopia

    Vision Research

    (1981)
  • Von NoordenG.K.

    Classification of amblyopia

    American Journal of Optometry

    (1967)
  • BarbeitoR. et al.

    Does impaired contrast sensitivity explain the spatial uncertainty of amblyopes?

    Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

    (1988)
  • BedellH.E. et al.

    Spatial aberrations and acuity in strabismus and amblyopia

    Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

    (1985)
  • BootheR.G. et al.

    Postnatal development of vision in human and nonhuman primates

    Annual Review of Neuroscience

    (1985)
  • BradleyA. et al.

    A comparison of contrast detection and discrimination

    Vision Research

    (1986)
  • CiuffredaK.J. et al.

    Impairment of contrast discrimination in amblyopic eyes

    Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science (Suppl.)

    (1987)
  • CiuffredaK.J. et al.

    Amblyopia. Basic and clinical aspects

    (1991)
  • Cited by (21)

    • Contrast masking in strabismic amblyopia: Attenuation, noise, interocular suppression and binocular summation

      2008, Vision Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      Ciuffreda and Fisher (1987) used monocular pedestals and concluded that contrast discrimination is compromised in the bad eye, but they did not measure the entire dipper function. Bradley and Ohzawa (1986) found an amblyopic deficit across the entire dipper function for both of their subjects and similar results were found by Kiper and Kiorpes (1994) in three experimentally strabismic monkeys. In the second two of these studies, monocular facilitation was less in the bad eye than the good eye.

    • Macaque Models of Visual Development and Disability

      2008, Primate Models of Children's Health and Developmental Disabilities
    • Does a Bayesian model of V1 contrast coding offer a neurophysiological account of human contrast discrimination?

      2005, Vision Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      We assume that it is processing in V1 which is exclusively responsible for setting the psychophysical thresholds, and that macaque V1 is a good model of human primary visual cortex. The latter assumption is supported by reports of dipper functions in a behavioural study in monkeys, very similar to the human ones (Kiper & Kiorpes, 1994), and by studies of contrast sensitivity in macaques and humans (De Valois, Morgan, & Snodderly, 1974). The failure of the models using the overall c50 distribution from V1, in comparison to the model using a non-physiological distribution, may be evidence against the former assumption, and may instead suggest that some extrastriate area, which has a different distribution of neuronal contrast sensitivities, is a key area for contrast discrimination, at least at high contrasts.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text