title: Effect of stimulus width on simultaneous contrast.
abstract: Perceived brightness of a stimulus depends on the background against which the stimulus is set, a phenomenon known as simultaneous contrast. For instance, the same gray stimulus can look light against a black background or dark against a white background. Here we quantified the perceptual strength of simultaneous contrast as a function of stimulus width. Previous studies have reported that wider stimuli result in weaker simultaneous contrast, whereas narrower stimuli result in stronger simultaneous contrast. However, no previous research has quantified this relationship. Our results show a logarithmic relationship between stimulus width and perceived brightness. This relationship is well matched by the normalized output of a Difference-of-Gaussians (DOG) filter applied to stimuli of varied widths.
authors.affiliation: Department of Neurobiology, Barrow Neurological Institute , Phoenix, AZ , USA.
authors.forename: Veronica
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Shi
authors.forename: Jie
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Cui
authors.forename: Xoana G
authors.initials: XG
authors.lastname: Troncoso
authors.forename: Stephen L
authors.initials: SL
authors.lastname: Macknik
authors.forename: Susana
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Martinez-Conde
keywords: Brightness; Edges; Illusion; Simultaneous contrast; Size; Width
references.citation: Vis Neurosci. 1993 Mar-Apr;10(2):363-73
references.pmid: 8485098
references.citation: Naturwissenschaften. 1991 Feb;78(2):70-3
references.pmid: 1886645
references.citation: J Physiol. 1984 Dec;357:219-40
references.pmid: 6512690
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1970 Mar;77(2):121-34
references.pmid: 5454127
references.citation: Vision Res. 2007 May;47(10):1282-91
references.pmid: 17395237
references.citation: Vision Res. 1999 Oct;39(26):4361-77
references.pmid: 10789430
references.citation: Spat Vis. 2009;22(3):211-24
references.pmid: 19460273
references.citation: Vision Res. 1975 Aug-Sep;15:917-29
references.pmid: 1166625
references.citation: Perception. 2005;34(4):409-20
references.pmid: 15943050
references.citation: Vision Res. 2000;40(22):3145-57
references.pmid: 10996617
references.citation: Vision Res. 2008 Nov;48(26):2642-8
references.pmid: 18664371
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Jun 20;97(13):7556-60
references.pmid: 10852945
references.citation: J Exp Psychol. 1962 Oct;64:336-45
references.pmid: 13886105
references.citation: J Neurophysiol. 2001 May;85(5):2111-29
references.pmid: 11353027
references.citation: J Exp Psychol. 1953 May;45(5):304-14
references.pmid: 13052866
references.citation: J Exp Psychol. 1955 Aug;50(2):89-96
references.pmid: 13242747
references.citation: J Physiol. 1966 Dec;187(3):517-52
references.pmid: 16783910
references.citation: Vision Res. 1991;31(7-8):1221-36
references.pmid: 1891814
references.citation: Vision Res. 1969 Jun;9(6):653-63
references.pmid: 5822781
references.citation: Science. 1971 Feb 19;171(3972):694-6
references.pmid: 4993033
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1960 May;67:168-99
references.pmid: 13816520
references.citation: PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e26062
references.pmid: 22022508
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 2001 Nov;63(8):1293-313
references.pmid: 11800458
references.citation: Vision Res. 1965 Dec;5(11):583-601
references.pmid: 5862581
references.citation: J Exp Psychol. 1953 Dec;46(6):453-6
references.pmid: 13118076
references.citation: J Exp Psychol. 1955 Aug;50(2):144-52
references.pmid: 13242754
references.citation: Perception. 2007;36(6):808-20
references.pmid: 17718360
references.citation: Vision Res. 1972 Nov;12(11):1923-31
references.pmid: 5079257
references.citation: Vision Res. 1997 Oct;37(20):2849-69
references.pmid: 9415365
references.citation: Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1980 Feb 29;207(1167):187-217
references.pmid: 6102765
references.citation: Sens Processes. 1977 May;1(3):260-71
references.pmid: 407654