How much of noise masking derives from noise?

D.H. Baker, T.S. Meese, M.A. Georgeson, R.F. Hess

Research output: Contribution to journalMeeting abstract

Abstract

In masking studies, external luminance noise is often used to estimate an observer’s level of internal (neural) noise. However, the standard noise model fails three important empirical tests: noise does not fully linearise the slope of the psychometric function, masking occurs even when the noise is identical in both 2AFC intervals, and double pass consistency is too low. This implies the involvement of additional processes such as suppression from contrast gain control or increased uncertainty, either of which invalidate estimates of equivalent internal noise. We propose that jittering the target contrast (cf Cohn, 1426–1428) provides a ’cleaner’ source of noise because it excites only the detecting mechanism. We compare the jitter condition to masking from 1D and 2D (white and pink) pixel noise, pedestals and orthogonal masks, in double pass masking and (novel) contrast matching experiments. The results show that contrast jitter produced the strongest masking, greatest double pass consistency, and no suppression of perceived contrast: just as the standard model of noise masking predicts (and unlike pixel noise). We attribute the remainder of the masking from pixel noise to contrast gain control, raising concerns about its use in equivalent noise masking experiments.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)66-67
Number of pages2
JournalPerception
Volume40
Issue numberSuppl.1
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2011
Event34th European Conference on Visual Perception - Toulouse, France
Duration: 28 Aug 20111 Sep 2011

Fingerprint

Noise
Gain control
Pixels
Jitter
Masks
Luminance
Experiments
Psychometrics
Uncertainty

Bibliographical note

ECVP 2011 Abstracts

Cite this

Baker, D. H., Meese, T. S., Georgeson, M. A., & Hess, R. F. (2011). How much of noise masking derives from noise? Perception, 40(Suppl.1), 66-67.
Baker, D.H. ; Meese, T.S. ; Georgeson, M.A. ; Hess, R.F. / How much of noise masking derives from noise?. In: Perception. 2011 ; Vol. 40, No. Suppl.1. pp. 66-67.
@article{4d3486d36f934d89be9a177e4ecf7912,
title = "How much of noise masking derives from noise?",
abstract = "In masking studies, external luminance noise is often used to estimate an observer’s level of internal (neural) noise. However, the standard noise model fails three important empirical tests: noise does not fully linearise the slope of the psychometric function, masking occurs even when the noise is identical in both 2AFC intervals, and double pass consistency is too low. This implies the involvement of additional processes such as suppression from contrast gain control or increased uncertainty, either of which invalidate estimates of equivalent internal noise. We propose that jittering the target contrast (cf Cohn, 1426–1428) provides a ’cleaner’ source of noise because it excites only the detecting mechanism. We compare the jitter condition to masking from 1D and 2D (white and pink) pixel noise, pedestals and orthogonal masks, in double pass masking and (novel) contrast matching experiments. The results show that contrast jitter produced the strongest masking, greatest double pass consistency, and no suppression of perceived contrast: just as the standard model of noise masking predicts (and unlike pixel noise). We attribute the remainder of the masking from pixel noise to contrast gain control, raising concerns about its use in equivalent noise masking experiments.",
author = "D.H. Baker and T.S. Meese and M.A. Georgeson and R.F. Hess",
note = "ECVP 2011 Abstracts",
year = "2011",
month = "8",
language = "English",
volume = "40",
pages = "66--67",
journal = "Perception",
issn = "0301-0066",
publisher = "Pion Ltd.",
number = "Suppl.1",

}

Baker, DH, Meese, TS, Georgeson, MA & Hess, RF 2011, 'How much of noise masking derives from noise?', Perception, vol. 40, no. Suppl.1, pp. 66-67.

How much of noise masking derives from noise? / Baker, D.H.; Meese, T.S.; Georgeson, M.A.; Hess, R.F.

In: Perception, Vol. 40, No. Suppl.1, 08.2011, p. 66-67.

Research output: Contribution to journalMeeting abstract

TY - JOUR

T1 - How much of noise masking derives from noise?

AU - Baker, D.H.

AU - Meese, T.S.

AU - Georgeson, M.A.

AU - Hess, R.F.

N1 - ECVP 2011 Abstracts

PY - 2011/8

Y1 - 2011/8

N2 - In masking studies, external luminance noise is often used to estimate an observer’s level of internal (neural) noise. However, the standard noise model fails three important empirical tests: noise does not fully linearise the slope of the psychometric function, masking occurs even when the noise is identical in both 2AFC intervals, and double pass consistency is too low. This implies the involvement of additional processes such as suppression from contrast gain control or increased uncertainty, either of which invalidate estimates of equivalent internal noise. We propose that jittering the target contrast (cf Cohn, 1426–1428) provides a ’cleaner’ source of noise because it excites only the detecting mechanism. We compare the jitter condition to masking from 1D and 2D (white and pink) pixel noise, pedestals and orthogonal masks, in double pass masking and (novel) contrast matching experiments. The results show that contrast jitter produced the strongest masking, greatest double pass consistency, and no suppression of perceived contrast: just as the standard model of noise masking predicts (and unlike pixel noise). We attribute the remainder of the masking from pixel noise to contrast gain control, raising concerns about its use in equivalent noise masking experiments.

AB - In masking studies, external luminance noise is often used to estimate an observer’s level of internal (neural) noise. However, the standard noise model fails three important empirical tests: noise does not fully linearise the slope of the psychometric function, masking occurs even when the noise is identical in both 2AFC intervals, and double pass consistency is too low. This implies the involvement of additional processes such as suppression from contrast gain control or increased uncertainty, either of which invalidate estimates of equivalent internal noise. We propose that jittering the target contrast (cf Cohn, 1426–1428) provides a ’cleaner’ source of noise because it excites only the detecting mechanism. We compare the jitter condition to masking from 1D and 2D (white and pink) pixel noise, pedestals and orthogonal masks, in double pass masking and (novel) contrast matching experiments. The results show that contrast jitter produced the strongest masking, greatest double pass consistency, and no suppression of perceived contrast: just as the standard model of noise masking predicts (and unlike pixel noise). We attribute the remainder of the masking from pixel noise to contrast gain control, raising concerns about its use in equivalent noise masking experiments.

UR - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03010066110400S102

M3 - Meeting abstract

VL - 40

SP - 66

EP - 67

JO - Perception

JF - Perception

SN - 0301-0066

IS - Suppl.1

ER -

Baker DH, Meese TS, Georgeson MA, Hess RF. How much of noise masking derives from noise? Perception. 2011 Aug;40(Suppl.1):66-67.