Chromatic spatial contrast sensitivity estimated by visual evoked cortical potential and psychophysics

The purpose of the present study was to measure contrast sensitivity to equiluminant gratings using steady-state visual evoked cortical potential (ssVECP) and psychophysics. Six healthy volunteers were evaluated with ssVECPs and psychophysics. The visual stimuli were red-green or blue-yellow horizontal sinusoidal gratings, 5° × 5°, 34.3 cd/m2 mean luminance, presented at 6 Hz. Eight spatial frequencies from 0.2 to 8 cpd were used, each presented at 8 contrast levels. Contrast threshold was obtained by extrapolating second harmonic amplitude values to zero. Psychophysical contrast thresholds were measured using stimuli at 6 Hz and static presentation. Contrast sensitivity was calculated as the inverse function of the pooled cone contrast threshold. ssVECP and both psychophysical contrast sensitivity functions (CSFs) were low-pass functions for red-green gratings. For electrophysiology, the highest contrast sensitivity values were found at 0.4 cpd (1.95 ± 0.15). ssVECP CSF was similar to dynamic psychophysical CSF, while static CSF had higher values ranging from 0.4 to 6 cpd (P < 0.05, ANOVA). Blue-yellow chromatic functions showed no specific tuning shape; however, at high spatial frequencies the evoked potentials showed higher contrast sensitivity than the psychophysical methods (P < 0.05, ANOVA). Evoked potentials can be used reliably to evaluate chromatic red-green CSFs in agreement with psychophysical thresholds, mainly if the same temporal properties are applied to the stimulus. For blue-yellow CSF, correlation between electrophysiology and psychophysics was poor at high spatial frequency, possibly due to a greater effect of chromatic aberration on this kind of stimulus.

The attentional modulation of the flash-lag effect

If a dot is flashed in perfect alignment with a pair of dots rotating around the visual fixation point, most observers perceive the rotating dots as being ahead of the flashing dot (flash-lag effect). This perceptual effect has been interpreted to result from the perceptual extrapolation of the moving dots, the differential visual latencies between flashing and moving stimuli, as well as the modulation of attentional mechanisms. Here we attempted to uncouple the attentional effects brought about by the spatial predictability of the flashing dot from the sensory effects dependent on its visual eccentricity. The stimulus was a pair of dots rotating clockwise around the fixation point. Another dot was flashed at either the upper right or the lower left of the visual field according to three separate blocked situations: fixed, alternate and random positions. Twenty-four participants had to judge, in all three situations, the location of the rotating dots in relation to the imaginary line connecting the flashing dot and the fixation point at the moment the dot was flashed. The flash-lag effect was observed in all three situations, and a clear influence of the spatial predictability of the flashing dot on the magnitude of the perceptual phenomenon was revealed, independently of sensory effects related to the eccentricity of the stimulus in the visual field. These findings are consistent with our proposal that, in addition to sensory factors, the attentional set modulates the magnitude of the differential latencies that give rise to the flash-lag phenomenon.

Modulation of the perception of temporal order by attentional and pre-attentional factors

When two stimuli are presented simultaneously to an observer, the perceived temporal order does not always correspond to the actual one. In three experiments we examined how the location and spatial predictability of visual stimuli modulate the perception of temporal order. Thirty-two participants had to report the temporal order of appearance of two visual stimuli. In Experiment 1, both stimuli were presented at the same eccentricity and no perceptual asynchrony between them was found. In Experiment 2, one stimulus was presented close to the fixation point and the other, peripheral, stimulus was presented in separate blocks in two eccentricities (4.8º and 9.6º). We found that the peripheral stimulus was perceived to be delayed in relation to the central one, with no significant difference between the delays obtained in the two eccentricities. In Experiment 3, using three eccentricities (2.5º, 7.3º and 12.1º) for the presentation of the peripheral stimulus, we compared a condition in which its location was highly predictable with two other conditions in which its location was progressively less predictable. Here, the perception of the peripheral stimulus was also delayed in relation to the central one, with this delay depending on both the eccentricity and predictability of the stimulus. We argue that attentional deployment, manipulated by the spatial predictability of the stimulus, seems to play an important role in the temporal order perception of visual stimuli. Yet, under whichever condition of spatial predictability, basic sensory and attentional processes are unavoidably entangled and both factors must concur to the perception of temporal order.

Long-term loss of color vision after exposure to mercury vapor

We evaluated the color vision of 24 subjects (41.6 ± 6.5 years; 6 females) who worked in fluorescent lamp industries. They had been occupationally exposed to mercury vapor (10.6 ± 5.2 years) and had been away from the source of exposure for 6.4 ± 4.04 years. Mean urinary concentration of mercury was 40.6 ± 36.4 µg/g creatinine during or up to 1 year after exposure and 2.71 ± 1.19 µg/g creatinine at the time of color vision testing or up to 1 year thereafter. All patients were diagnosed with chronic mercury intoxication, characterized by clinical symptoms and neuropsychological alterations. A control group (N = 36, 48.6 ± 11.9 years, 10 females, 1.5 ± 0.47 µg mercury/g creatinine) was subjected to the same tests. Inclusion criteria for both groups were Snellen VA 20/30 or better and absence of known ophthalmologic pathologies. Color discrimination was assessed with the Farnsworth D-15 test (D-15) and with the Lanthony D-15d test (D-15d). Significant differences were found between the two eyes of the patients (P < 0.001) in both tests. Results for the worst eye were also different from controls for both tests: P = 0.014 for D-15 and P < 0.001 for D-15d. As shown in previous studies, the D-15d proved to be more sensitive than the D-15 for the screening and diagnosis of the color discrimination losses. Since color discrimination losses were still present many years after the end of exposure, they may be considered to be irreversible, at least under the conditions of the present study.