Shapes displayed with durations in the microsecond range do not obey Bloch's law of temporal summation

Evaluating letter recognition, flicker fusion, and the Talbot-Plateau law using microsecond-duration flashes

Four experiments examined the ability of respondents to identify letters that were displayed on an LED array with flashes lasting little more than a microsecond. The first experiment displayed each letter with a single, simultaneous flash of all the dots forming the letter and established the relation of flash intensity to the probability of letter identification. The second experiment displayed the letters with multiple flashes at different frequencies to determine the probability that the sequence of flashes would be perceived as fused. The third experiment displayed the letters at a frequency that was above the flicker-fusion frequency, varying flash intensity to establish the amount needed to elicit a given probability of letter identification. The fourth experiment displayed each letter twice, once at a frequency where no flicker was perceived and also with steady light emission. The intensity of each flash was fixed and the steady intensity was varied; respondents were asked to judge whether the fused-flicker display and the steady display appeared to be the same brightness. Steady intensity was about double the average flash intensity where the two conditions were perceived as being equal in brightness. This is at odds with Talbot-Plateau law, which predicts that these two values should be equal. The law was formulated relative to a flash lasting half of each period, so it is surprising that it comes this close to being correct where the flash occupies only a millionth of the total period.

Shape recognition elicited by microsecond flashes is not based on photon quantity

It is generally thought that the perceptual impact of a brief flash of light is determined by the quantity of photons the flash delivers. This means that only the total quantity of photons is important below a critical duration of about 30-100 ms. Recent findings have challenged this concept and the present work provides additional evidence that it is not correct. The first experiment reported here delivered a given quantity of photons in under 200 μs, either as a single threshold-intensity flash or as multiple flashes at the same intensity. The single flash was ineffective at eliciting recognition, but multiple flashes became progressively more effective as the number of flashes was increased. A second experiment varied the number of 10 μs flashes. The effectiveness of multiple flashes was far higher than would be expected on the basis of the total quantity of photons being delivered. The results of both experiments suggest that the brief transitions of intensity provided by the flashes are far more important than the quantity of photons. A final experiment examined the combined impact from two threshold-intensity flashes as the interstimulus interval was increased. The pair members were able to combine their influence for at least 100 ms. These results call for more attention to how very brief light flashes generate signals that convey image content.

Violation of Bloch's Law that specifies reciprocity of intensity and duration with brief light flashes

For more than a century researchers have been reporting that the visual impact of a very brief flash is determined by the quantity of photons that the flash delivers. This has been variously described as the Bunsen-Roscoe Law or Bloch's Law, often specified as reciprocity of intensity × duration. Prior research found no evidence for such reciprocity when microsecond-duration flashes from a light-emitting diode array were used to display the major contours of nameable shapes. The present work tested with flash durations ranging up to 100 ms and also found no reciprocity. This departure from classic principles might be due to the specific range of wavelengths of the light-emitting diodes and to a mesopic level of ambient light, which together would preclude activation of rods. The reciprocity of intensity and duration may only be valid with full dark adaptation and very dim flashes that activate rods.