Seeing light vs dark lines: psychophysical performance is based on separate channels, limited by noise and uncertainty

Visual detection performance (d') is usually an accelerating function of stimulus contrast, which could imply a smooth, threshold-like nonlinearity in the sensory response. Alternatively, Pelli (1985 Journal of the Optical Society of America A 2 1508 - 1532) developed the 'uncertainty model' in which responses were linear with contrast, but the observer was uncertain about which of many noisy channels contained the signal. Such internal uncertainty effectively adds noise to weak signals, and predicts the nonlinear psychometric function. We re-examined these ideas by plotting psychometric functions (as z-scores) for two observers (SAW, PRM) with high precision. The task was to detect a single, vertical, blurred line at the fixation point, or identify its polarity (light vs dark). Detection of a known polarity was nearly linear for SAW but very nonlinear for PRM. Randomly interleaving light and dark trials reduced performance and rendered it non-linear for SAW, but had little effect for PRM. This occurred for both single-interval and 2AFC procedures. The whole pattern of results was well predicted by our Monte Carlo simulation of Pelli's model, with only two free parameters. SAW (highly practised) had very low uncertainty. PRM (with little prior practice) had much greater uncertainty, resulting in lower contrast sensitivity, nonlinear performance, and no effect of external (polarity) uncertainty. For SAW, identification was about v2 better than detection, implying statistically independent channels for stimuli of opposite polarity, rather than an opponent (light - dark) channel. These findings strongly suggest that noise and uncertainty, rather than sensory nonlinearity, limit visual detection.

Which physiological components are more suitable for visual ERP based brain-computer interface?:A preliminary MEG/EEG study

We investigated which evoked response component occurring in the first 800 ms after stimulus presentation was most suitable to be used in a classical P300-based brain-computer interface speller protocol. Data was acquired from 275 Magnetoencephalographic sensors in two subjects and from 61 Electroencephalographic sensors in four. To better characterize the evoked physiological responses and minimize the effect of response overlap, a 1000 ms Inter Stimulus Interval was preferred to the short (

What drives the prediction of early reading? An analysis of stimulus and response-type

Purpose: Phonological accounts of reading implicate three aspects of phonological awareness tasks that underlie the relationship with reading; a) the language-based nature of the stimuli (words or nonwords), b) the verbal nature of the response, and c) the complexity of the stimuli (words can be segmented into units of speech). Yet, it is uncertain which task characteristics are most important as they are typically confounded. By systematically varying response-type and stimulus complexity across speech and non-speech stimuli, the current study seeks to isolate the characteristics of phonological awareness tasks that drive the prediction of early reading. Method: Four sets of tasks were created; tone stimuli (simple non-speech) requiring a non-verbal response, phonemes (simple speech) requiring a non-verbal response, phonemes requiring a verbal response, and nonwords (complex speech) requiring a verbal response. Tasks were administered to 570 2nd grade children along with standardized tests of reading and non-verbal IQ. Results: Three structural equation models comparing matched sets of tasks were built. Each model consisted of two 'task' factors with a direct link to a reading factor. The following factors predicted unique variance in reading: a) simple speech and non-speech stimuli, b) simple speech requiring a verbal response but not simple speech requiring a non-verbal-response, and c) complex and simple speech stimuli. Conclusions: Results suggest that the prediction of reading by phonological tasks is driven by the verbal nature of the response and not the complexity or 'speechness' of the stimuli. Findings highlight the importance of phonological output processes to early reading.