Interocular sensitization to a rod-detected test

Effects of light and dark adaptation of rods on specific-hue threshold

Specific-hue threshold as a function of absolute rod threshold was measured with long-, middle-, and short-wavelength monochromatic test lights presented 17 deg extrafoveally. The measurements were obtained both during the rod phase of long-term dark adaptation and under conditions where the rod receptor system was gradually light adapted from a dark-adapted state by a scotopic background field of increasing retinal illumination. The results show that change in specific-hue threshold with change in absolute rod threshold is not, in general, identical for light and dark adaptation of the rod receptor system. Thus, in the long- and middle-wavelength test regions, the specific-hue threshold could be obtained at higher intensities under the light- as compared to the dark-adaptation condition when absolute rod thresholds were the same. Just the opposite was found for the short-wavelength tests. It is concluded that change in specific-hue threshold with light and dark adaptation of the rod receptor system is not, in general, controlled by the same mechanism.

Suppressive rod-cone interactions: evidence for separate retinal (temporal) and extraretinal (spatial) mechanisms in achromatic vision

We investigated the influence of selective rod light and dark adaptation on cone-mediated sensitivity to monocular displays modulated sinusoidally in both spatial and temporal domains. Rod light adaptation (1) increased sensitivity to high spatial frequencies [> or = 8 cycles per degree (cpd)] flickered slowly (< or = 2 Hz), an effect that we refer to as grating suppressive rod-cone interaction (gSRCI); (2) increased sensitivity to low spatial frequencies (< or = 2 cpd) flickered rapidly (> or = 8 Hz), an effect that we refer to as flicker suppressive rod-cone interaction (fSRCI); and (3) had relatively little influence on intermediate temporal-spatial-frequency combinations. The magnitudes of both gSRCI and fSRCI increased as the retinal position of the test display was increasingly displaced parafoveally. In parafoveal retina, both forms of suppressive rod-cone interaction increased as the overall dimension of the test stimulus decreased. However, sensitivity to high spatial frequencies is equally well influenced by adaptation of the viewing and the contralateral eye, while the adapted state of the nonviewing eye negligibly influences sensitivity to rapid flicker. Moreover, gSRCI cannot be observed with a small (30-arcmin) grating restricted to the fovea, while fSRCI is a prominent effect with small foveal test stimuli. Collectively, these results and neurobiological evidence suggest that fSRCI reflects a mechanism restricted to distal retinal, while gSRCI involves extraretinal neural circuitry.

Changes in sensitivity of the dark-adapted eye during concurrent light adaptation of the other eye

Thresholds for detection of light by a dark-adapted test eye were measured while the other, non-test eye was either similarly dark adapted or while it was exposed to an intense red adapting field. An interocular effect that depends on the retinal location of the test was found: compared to the threshold during binocular dark adaptation, sensitivity decreased during contralateral light adaptation when the test was presented to the foveola and up to 4 deg above it; but sensitivity increased when the test was between 7 and 12 deg, showing a reversal at 5 deg.

Tonic interocular suppression and binocular summation in human vision

1. Spatial sensitivity of human foveal vision was examined using sinusoidally modulated gratings. Our primary concern was the influence of interocular light adaptation upon monocular visibility. 2. Interocular adapting influences depend upon spatial frequency and adapting luminance. Interocular adaptation has a negligible influence upon the sensitivity to 1 cycle/deg gratings. Any visible interocular adapting field improves the sensitivity to intermediate spatial frequencies (2-5 cycles/deg). 3. Brighter interocular backgrounds (greater than 0.1 cd/m2) improve sensitivity to higher spatial frequencies (10-20 cycles/deg). 4. The interocular adapting influences summarized in (2) and (3) above cannot be duplicated by monocular or binocular adaptation. Similarly, monocular or binocular adaptation have negligible influences upon binocular visibility. 5. The interocular adapting effect summarized in (3) above can be duplicated by pressure blinding the contralateral eye. We conclude that monocular spatial sensitivity is subject to a tonic interocular suppression (TIS) from the dark-adapted eye. 6. The spatial sensitivity resulting from binocular viewing is nearly identical to that observed by combining monocular viewing with interocular light adaptation. We suggest that the improvement in sensitivity resulting from two-eyed viewing may be attributable to the removal of TIS instead of to binocular physiological summation.