Central and Off-Axis Spatial Contrast Sensitivity Measured 

With Gabor Patches 

by William A. Monaco, O.D., Ph.D., Kent E. Higgins, Ph.D., 

and Joel T. Kalb, Ph.D. 

ARL-TR-5363 September 2010 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
NOTICES 

Disclaimers 

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless 

so designated by other authorized documents. 

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the 

use thereof. 

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator. 
Army Research Laboratory 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425 

ARL-TR-5363 September 2010 

Central and Off-Axis Spatial Contrast Sensitivity Measured 

With Gabor Patches 

William A. Monaco, O.D., Ph.D., Kent E. Higgins, Ph.D., 

and Joel T. Kalb, Ph.D. 

Human Research and Engineering Directorate, ARL 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
ii

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering 

and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, 

including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson 

Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to 

comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

September 2010 

2. REPORT TYPE 

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

November 2008–July 2009 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Central and Off-Axis Spatial Contrast Sensitivity Measured With Gabor Patches 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

William A. Monaco, O.D., Ph.D., Kent E. Higgins, Ph.D., and Joel T. Kalb, Ph.D. 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

NA-HR-2008-02 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

ATTN: RDRL-HRS-D 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

 REPORT NUMBER 

ARL-TR-5363 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT 

 NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

14. ABSTRACT 

The U.S. Army acquisition community uses models of human and systems performance to evaluate materiel. One such model, 

used to assess equipment for the dismounted Soldier, is the Individual Warrior Simulation (IWARS). When Soldier modeling 

target acquisition, IWARS applies the ACQUIRE model to some portion of the visual scene, determines the probability of 

detecting a target if one is present, then repeats the process for a different portion of the field. ACQUIRE predicts the 

probability of visually acquiring a target presented anywhere within its field of view (FOV) without regard for the location of

the target in the scene. Human visual performance varies dramatically across the FOV, with acuity decreasing rapidly as 

objects move away from the center of gaze or away from the central vertical and horizontal axes of vision. The current research 

used Gabor patches to characterize visual detection thresholds at various locations around central vision. Results showed a 

marked increase in contrast threshold for targets of a y of spatial frequencies ranging from 0.5 to 18.2 cycles/degree appearing 

greater than +3°–4° horizontal eccentricity. These results can be used to intelligently constrain the portion of the visual field 

over which IWARS applies the ACQUIRE detection model. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

spatial contrast sensitivity, Gabor patch, spatial resolution, visual acuity 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

UU 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

20 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Barry Vaughan 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified 

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

410-278-3324 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18 
iii

Contents 

Acknowledgments iv

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................................1

1.2 Background .....................................................................................................................1

2. Methods 3

2.1 Experimental Design .......................................................................................................3

2.2 Subjects ...........................................................................................................................3

2.3 Spatial Contrast Sensitivity Testing System and Procedure ...........................................3

3. Results 5

4. Discussion and Recommendations 6

5. References 10

Distribution List 12 
iv

Acknowledgments 

The authors owe a special thanks to Dr. Felix Barker and the Pennsylvania College of Optometry 

of the Salus University for providing the necessary support facilities and laboratory space 

necessary to conduct this research. 

The authors would also like to thank our student research assistants, Sheila Poon and Rigoberto 

Arteaga, for their tireless efforts in ensuring the timely collection of the data necessary for the 

completion of this project and Catherine Feinstein for her assistance in the preparation of this 

manuscript. 

This pilot study summary was prepared for the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, 

Development and Engineering Center through the cooperation and support of Mr. Joseph 

Venezia, the contract manager. 
1 

1. Introduction 

1.1 Purpose of the Study 

Currently, combat simulations predict target detection and recognition performance by two 

models – ACQUIRE and DELPHI. The ACQUIRE model predicts the probability of visually 

acquiring a target presented anywhere within a scene without regard for the location of the target 

in the visual field of the observer; the DELPHI model predicts aspects of peripheral vision. 

Neither model incorporates actual variations of human vision threshold across eccentricities in 

measures of Soldier performance, yet tools including the Individual Warrior Simulation 

(IWARS) use such models to predict visual performance. The objective of this work is to 

provide appropriately scaled and specific vision threshold data that may be incorporated into 

visual acquisition models and simulations in a manner that improves their computational speed 

and predictive capability. These vision thresholds are derived from the measurement of the 

subject’s visual capabilities using well-established scientific methodologies and state-of-the-art 

technologies to measure visual thresholds. 

1.2 Background 

A key mission objective for the Warfighter is to minimize fratricide risk while maximizing 

mission effectiveness by optimizing visual identification of friendly vs. enemy combatants under 

complex and stressful battlefield conditions. This mission objective must be accomplished 

without impinging on the Warfighter’s combat and mission effectiveness, while reducing the 

potential for fratricide risk to neutrals, and noncombatants, or friendly Soldiers (1). 

In order to meet this mission objective, the U.S. Department of the Army has challenged the 

research community to develop a way to quantify the Warfighters’ visual performance while 

improving their ability to identify targets while maintaining a low probability for error. There 

has been a hierarchy of defined visual events that has led to target identification; these include 

the following: 

• detection (initially distinguishing target from background) 

• classification (animal vs. human) 

• recognition (man) 

• identification (adversary) 

The U.S. Army modeling and simulation community has an approved system that seeks to 

simulate the likely performance of dismounted warriors. The Natick Soldier Systems Center 

(NSSC) and the U.S. Army Material Systems Analysis Activity (AMSAA) pursued infantry
2 

combat simulations independently until 2003, when NSSC and AMSAA agreed to collaborate on 

a constructive model to meet both agencies’ needs. As a result, IWARS was created. A virtual 

environment was created in which Soldier behaviors could be simulated with a view to 

evaluating proposed equipment and troop deployment strategies. 

A key factor in Warfighter combat performance is optimal use of unaided vision. Currently, the 

ACQUIRE model of target acquisition is used by the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research 

Development and Engineering Command in IWARS to predict a Soldiers’ visual target 

acquisition performance. Within the ACQUIRE model’s predefined field of view (FOV), vision 

is homogeneously good, and the prediction of detection performance from the model is based on 

the assumption that an observer has sufficient time to examine the entire scene using fovealquality vision. For some applications, the predefined size of ACQUIRE’s FOV may not be 

important. However, size is important in IWARS, where the behavioral model moves a small 

FOV around a much larger field and applies the ACQUIRE model to the contents of the scene in 

each FOV. It is in this way that IWARS developers model the dynamics of visual search for a 

target. Thus, an important question arises: What is an appropriate value for the horizontal FOV 

for the ACQUIRE model when used by simulations such as IWARS? Figure 1 shows that one 

measure of vision, acuity, declines rapidly with increasing eccentricity. 

Figure 1. The effect of eccentricity on visual acuity (expressed in decimal 

notation) (2).
3 

Figure 1 indicates that decimal acuity at about 4°–5° of eccentricity is ~0.33. This corresponds 

to a decline from 20/20 at the fovea to 20/60 at about 5°. Thus, the required minimum angle of 

resolution has increased by a factor of 3 from 1 to 3 min of arc. In the present research, the 

objective was to obtain specific vision threshold data describing the change in overall spatial 

contrast sensitivity (3–5) within the near-central retina. These data, in conjunction with those in 

figure 1, should provide an estimate of an acceptable lateral FOV for the ACQUIRE Model when 

used in IWARS, an FOV over which one can assume reasonably uniform and good, unaided 

vision. 

2. Methods 

2.1 Experimental Design 

A three-retinal-eccentricity X, six-spatial-frequency, repeated-measures design was used for 

collection of the spatial contrast sensitivity data described in this report. Spatial contrast 

sensitivity was measured at spatial frequencies ranging from 0.5 to 18.2 cycles/degree and at 

horizontal retinal eccentricities of 1°, 2°, and 4°. 

2.2 Subjects 

Ten male and female subjects (mean age = 25.4 ± 1.6 years) were tested after informed consent 

was obtained from each using the Salus University institutional review board-approved 

procedures and consent form. Prior to testing, all subjects were evaluated to verify their visual 

status in the clinical skills lab of the Pennsylvania College of Optometry/Salus University. 

Subjects were excluded if there was a history of eye disease or visual disorder. Further, all 

subjects were required to have a corrected visual acuity of at least 20/20 in each eye, normal 

color vision in each eye (as measured by the Ishihara test), and a stereoacuity of at least 20 s of 

arc (as measured with a stereo optical Randot test). 

2.3 Spatial Contrast Sensitivity Testing System and Procedure 

The recently procured Metropsis (Cambridge Research Systems) testing suite was used 

exclusively for all testing. The Metropsis vision testing suite provides precise, repeatable, 

psychophysical threshold measurements for general research applications. Features include a 

high-resolution graphics engine capable of presenting spatial patterns with 14-bit contrast 

resolution, a choice of stimuli (sine-wave gratings vs. Gabor patches, three psychophysical 

staircase options [linear, logarithmic, and QUEST], and two forced-choice testing options 

(2-interval temporal vs. a 2 or 4 alternative spatial forced choice procedure). 

Although much of the early research on contrast sensitivity was conducted using sharplywindowed, extended grating patterns (3–5), this option was rejected for the present study. 

Briefly, as Peli et al. noted (6), “extended gratings CSFs are unlikely to represent actual contrast
4 

sensitivity in free viewing of real-world images, and, therefore, may be inappropriate for vision 

simulation in normals.” Indeed, more recent models (5, 7, 8) have relied heavily on results 

collected using Gabor patches as stimuli, i.e., spatial sine-wave gratings windowed by a twodimensional (2-D) Gaussian envelope. Accordingly, all measurements in the present research 

were obtained using Metropsis’ Gabor patch option. 

At the calibrated 1-m viewing distance used for most measurements, the fixed size Gabor stimuli 

represented the product of a 5o

 × 5o vertical sine wave grating having a spatial frequency from 

0.5 to 9.1 cycles/degree and a 2-D Gaussian window function having a radial standard deviation 

of 1° of visual angle. The stimuli were displayed on a calibrated, high-resolution, 21-in 

Mitsubishi monitor at a mean luminance of 50 cd/m2. The experimenter monitored the test’s 

progress using a computer and associated computer display. 

All subjects were tested under binocular viewing conditions using the 2-alternative spatial forced 

choice procedure. Subjects were instructed to maintain fixation on a small green fixation cross 

in the center of the display monitor. The start of a trial was announced by a brief tone following 

a stimulus pattern that was presented at a fixed eccentricity to the left or right side of the fixation 

cross. Each trial of the Gabor patch was presented for a total duration of 1200 ms. The contrast 

of the Gabor patch gradually increased and decreased over the 1200-ms interval. A raised cosine 

temporal envelope to minimize temporal transients associated with stimulus presentation 

followed since such transients were known to selectivity affect low spatial frequency sensitivity 

(5, 6, 9). The subject’s task was to press a button on a response console indicating whether the 

pattern appeared on the left or right side of the fixation cross. 

Starting contrast levels were selected to ensure that each spatial frequency would be easily 

visible to the subject at the beginning of the test. Threshold was measured at each spatial 

frequency and eccentricity by varying the contrast of the Gabor patch over a series of 

presentations using the Metropsis’ default logarithmic staircase option. In this option, a single 

correct response produced a decrement in contrast while a single incorrect response produced an 

increment in contrast. The logarithmic option was selected since it provided the best option for 

ensuring that subjects would quickly reach near-threshold contrast levels (i.e., within 5–10 

presentations at each spatial frequency). This, in turn, ensured that an estimate of threshold 

sensitivity could be achieved within a reasonable number (e.g., 30–40) of stimulus presentations. 

Each correct response to the first few presentations at each spatial frequency produced relatively 

large (1.5 dB) decreases in contrast. After the first incorrect response, each correct response 

produced a 0.2-dB decrement in contrast while each incorrect response produced a 0.6-dB 

increment in contrast. The staircase at each spatial frequency was terminated after 10 reversals 

in the direction of contrast change. Threshold was calculated as the mean of the final eight 

reversals. 
5 

Testing protocols were created using the menu-driven interface provided by the Metropsis 

system for two different test distances. Two sets of protocols were necessary since the spatial 

calibration of the Metropsis system assumed a default test distance of 1 m. At that test distance, 

the highest presentable spatial frequency (without aliasing) was 9.1 cycles/degree. Accordingly, 

three 1-m testing protocols (one/eccentricity) were created for testing spatial frequencies of 0.5, 

1.0., 2.0, 4.0, and 9.1 cycles/degree. The difference between the three protocols was in the 

horizontal eccentricity at which the Gabor patches appeared (1°, 2°, or 4°). To measure contrast 

sensitivity at 18.2 cycles/degree, three additional testing protocols (one/eccentricity) were 

created to test sensitivity of a single Gabor frequency (the nominal 9.1 cycle/degree Gabor patch) 

using a 2-m test distance. This effectively doubled the spatial frequency of the highest frequency 

Gabor patch from 9.1 to 18.2 cycles/degree. The screen eccentricities at which the patterns were 

presented were doubled for the longer 2-m test distance to ensure that the retinal eccentricities 

were the same as for the 1-m testing distance (i.e., 1°, 2°, and 4°). 

3. Results 

For the statistical analysis, thresholds were expressed as the logarithm of the reciprocal of the 

threshold contrast. Thus, a threshold contrast of 0.01 (1%) represented a contrast sensitivity of 

100 or a log contrast sensitivity of 2.0, and a threshold contrast of 0.10 (10%) represented a 

contrast sensitivity of 10 or a log contrast sensitivity of 1.0. The resulting table of log contrast 

sensitivities was then analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences application. 

The results of this analysis indicated statistically significant effects of spatial frequency [F(5,45) 

= 156.7, p < 0.0001] and eccentricity [F(2,18) = 6.08, p = 0.01]. Both effects seen in figure 2 

show mean Gabor contrast sensitivity as a function of spatial frequency for each of the three 

eccentricities. Error bars (+1 SD) show the results collected at the 1° retinal eccentricity. Error 

bars for the 1° and 4° eccentricities were similar to those for the 1° eccentricity but were omitted 

for presentation clarity. The significant effect of spatial frequency was expected given that 

contrast sensitivity was well known to be an inverted U-shaped function of spatial frequency. In 

addition, it was well known that, on average, sensitivity decreased with increasing retinal 

eccentricity. In this study, the change with eccentricity, while significant, was small in 

magnitude. 

It was also well known that high spatial frequency sensitivity should decrease more rapidly with 

increasing eccentricity when compared to low-frequency sensitivity, paralleling the well-known 

rapid decline in visual acuity. Indeed, the statistical analysis confirmed that the spatial frequency 

X eccentricity interaction was significant [F(10, 90) = 4.4, p < 0.0001]. The results in figure 2 

show that with increasing eccentricity, there was a selectively greater loss in sensitivity at the 

higher frequency relative to the middle and lower spatial frequencies.
6 

Figure 2. Gabor log contrast sensitivity vs. retinal eccentricity. 

Finally, figure 3 shows the results from figure 2 plotted in semi-log coordinates. This type of 

plot is useful for estimating the high spatial frequency cutoff from thresholds collected at the 

higher spatial frequencies. This cutoff is intended to represent the highest spatial frequency that 

could be detected if presented at maximum (100%). This cut-off frequency was estimated by 

fitting straight lines (not shown) to the thresholds for the 4, 9.1, and 18.2 cycles/degree patterns 

at each eccentricity to determine the x-axis intercept. The three downward pointing arrows along 

the spatial frequency axis indicate cut-off frequencies. The cut-off frequencies for the 1, 2, and 4 

eccentricity data were 37, 30, and 27 cycles/degree. These frequencies corresponded to 

minimum angles of resolution of 0.82, 1.00, and 1.11 min of arc. Thus, the total increase in the 

minimum angle of resolution at maximum contrast (vision loss) was by a factor of 1.35, not the 

factor of 3, as noted for Westheimer’s acuity vs. eccentricity data. 

4. Discussion and Recommendations 

There are three features of the results that merit discussion. First, the fact that statistically 

significant results were obtained in this interim study is important because it suggests that 

relatively small samples are sufficient to delineate differences among conditions, at least for 

within-subject experimental designs. Second, the results are generally consistent with those 

reported by previous researchers using similar methodologies. At all eccentricities, contrast 

sensitivity was a roughly inverted-U-shaped function of spatial frequency. 

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

Spatial Frequency (cycles/degree)

Log Sensitivity

1 deg

2 deg

4 deg
7 

Figure 3. Estimate of high spatial frequency cutoff by eccentricity. 

Third, the finding that increasing eccentricity produced an increasing loss in high spatial 

frequency is highly relevant to the application of ACQUIRE within a simulation such as 

IWARS. Although this finding is consistent with the well-known decline in visual acuity with 

increased eccentricity, the present results obtained using Gabor patches suggest that the loss may 

be more moderate than that suggested by the visual acuity results shown earlier in figure 1. 

However, it must also be noted that the total angular subtense of a 20/60 acuity target imaged at 

any eccentricity is limited to an extent, i.e., 15 min of arc (0.25°). In contrast, the effective 

angular subtense of the Gabor patches used in this study would, near threshold, have been at least 

3–4× larger. Thus, even though the most extreme Gabor patch was centered at 4°, portions of 

the stimulus would have impinged on less eccentric and, therefore, more sensitive retinal regions. 

This may have contributed to a smaller estimate of resolution loss compared to that observed by 

Westheimer using acuity targets. Thus, in attempting to estimate an appropriate value for the 

horizontal FOV for the ACQUIRE model when used in IWARS, it would seem best to base this 

estimate on both measures of resolution, i.e., acuity and spatial contrast sensitivity (via high 

spatial frequency cutoff values). 

Both acuity and contrast sensitivity measures indicate that maximum resolution declines with 

eccentricities as small at 4°. Westheimer’s data suggest that acuity decreases from 20/20 and the 

fovea to about 20/40 at 2°–3° (factor of 2 resolution loss) and to about 20/60 (factor of 3 

resolution loss) at 4°–5°. In contrast, the high spatial frequency cutoff data obtained using Gabor

Figure 3. Estimate of High Spatial Frequency Cutoff by Eccentricity

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

Spatial Frequency (cycles/degree)

Log Sensitivity

1 deg

2 deg

4 deg
8 

patches suggests a smaller estimate (factor of 1.35) of loss at 4°, implying that one may be able, 

at least with larger angular subtense images, to resolve detail with a better than 20/40 level of 

vision. At eccentricities larger than ±4°, this would not have been true. Specifically, the results 

shown previously represented mean sensitivities. It should be noted that about half of the 

subjects were pushing the limits of our system’s ability to measure contrast sensitivity at the 

highest spatial frequency, i.e., 18.2 cycles/degree. That is, we would not have been able to 

measure the precise amount of additional high spatial frequency resolution loss at eccentricities 

greater than 4°. 

Accordingly, it is recommended that the horizontal FOV of the ACQUIRE model used in 

IWARS be restricted to no more than +3°–4°, or a total field not exceeding 6°–8°. Within this 

window, one can likely expect a level of vision of roughly 20/40 or better, a level consistent with 

the currently-prevalent minimum visual acuity standard required for an unrestricted driver’s 

license (10). 

Finally, there is one important issue that should be addressed in future research. Specifically, at 

present, IWARS is blind in all regions of the peripheral field beyond the pre-specified horizontal 

limits of the ACQUIRE model’s central FOV. This means that IWARS’ behavior model cannot 

use peripheral visual events to guide the FOV in a manner consistent with human behavior. 

Accordingly, it is recommended that research be conducted to determine the kinds of peripheral 

vision events and stimuli that might be critical for triggering IWARS to re-direct its relatively 

small, high-resolution FOV to inspect and search new regions of the visual environment. 

Spatially redundant stimuli like moving (or flickering) low-frequency sine wave gratings and 

Gabor patches provide one option for studying potential peripheral vision “triggering” events. In 

the event that such stimuli are selected for study, a series of papers on the “perimetry of contrast 

detection thresholds of moving spatial sine wave patterns” by Koenderink and collaborators 

(11–14) should provide an informative starting point. In addition, as part of this Technology 

Program Annex, the U.S. Army Research Laboratory created a software algorithm and testing 

paradigm for the tactical environmental simulator and was able to demonstrate proof of concept 

for the measurement of retinal motion sensitivity in the extreme periphery using a relatively 

simple stimulus configuration (dot displacement) (15). Importantly, any investigation of 

peripheral vision introduces a number of caveats that are normally not present in the 

investigations of central field visual function. These caveats concern such factors as the effects 

of practice (16), the potential task-dependent effects of practice (17), and the effect of attention 

(18) on peripheral visual performance. 

These research paradigms could be implemented and extended using the ViSaGe-based system 

used in the current project. Such research would provide IWARS with the peripheral vision 

information (cues) necessary to direct and redirect ACQUIRE’s FOV from one region of the 

visual environment to another through an efficient “top-down” or “event-driven” search strategy. 

Conducting such research would, however, require the addition of a MATLAB license to the
9 

existing ViSaGe workstation and a qualified programmer with expertise in vision science and 

MATLAB. The software provided with the ViSaGe system does not provide the measurement 

of sensitivity to moving stimuli. 
10 

5. References 

1. TRADOC Pamphlet 525-66. Force Operating Capabilities; U.S. Army Training and 

Doctrine Command. 

2. Westheimer, G. Visual Acuity; chapter 17. In Adlers’s Physiology of the Eye, Clinical 

Application; Moses, R. A., Hart, W. M., Eds.; St. Louis: The C.V. Mosby Company, 1987. 

3. Barten, P. Contrast Sensitivity of the Human Eye and Its Effects on Image Quality. SPIE 

1999, 208. 

4. Ginsburg, A. P. Visual Information Processing Based on Spatial Filters Constrained by 

Biological Data; U.S. Air Force Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory: Wright-Patterson 

AFB, OH, 1978; Vols. 1 and 2. 

5. Graham, N. Visual Pattern Analyzers. Oxford Psychology Series; Oxford University Press: 

New York, 1989; p 646. 

6. Peli, E.; Young, G.; Goldstein, R. Contrast Sensitivity to Patch Stimuli: Effects of Spatial 

Bandwidth and Temporal Presentation. Spatial Vision 1993a, 7, 1–14. 

7. Peli, E. Contrast in Complex Images. J. of Opt. Soc. Am. A 1990, 7, 2032–2040. 

8. Peli, E.; Geri, G. Validation and Verification of A Visual Model for Central and Peripheral 

Vision. RTO SCI Workshop; RTO MP-45, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 2001. 

9. Higgins, K. E.; Caruso, R. C.; Coletta, N. J.; de Monasterio, F. M. Effect of Artificial 

Central Scotoma on the Spatial Contrast Sensitivity of Normal Subjects. Invest. Ophthalmol. 

Vis. Sci. 1983, 24 (8), 1131–1138. 

10. Higgins, K. E.; Wood, J. M. Predicting Components of Closed Road Driving Performance 

from Vision Tests. Optom. Vis. Sci. 2005, 82 (8), 647–656. 

11. Koenderink, J. J.; Bouman, M. A.; Bueno de Mesquita, A. E.; Spallendel, S. Perimetry of 

Contrast Detection Thresholds of Moving Spatial Sine Wave Patterns IV. The Influence of 

the Mean Retinal Illuminance. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 1978, 68 (6), 860–865. 

12. Koenderink, J. J.; Bouman, M. A.; Bueno de Mesquita, A. E.; Spallendel, S. Perimetry of 

Contrast Detection Thresholds of Moving Spatial Sine Wave Patterns III. The Target Extent 

as a Sensitivity Controlling Parameter. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 1978, 68 (6), 854–860. 

13. Koenderink, J. J.; Bouman, M. A.; Bueno de Mesquita, A. E.; Spallendel, S. Perimetry of 

Contrast Detection Thresholds of Moving Spatial Sine Patterns II. The Far Peripheral Visual 

Field (Eccentricity 0 Degrees-50 Degrees). J. Opt. Soc. Am. 1978, 68 (6), 850–854.
11 

14. Koenderink, J. J.; Bouman, M. A.; Bueno de Mesquita, A. E.; Spallendel, S. Perimetry of 

Contrast Detection Thresholds of Moving Spatial Sine Wave Patterns I. The Near Peripheral 

Visual Field (Eccentricity 0 Degrees-8 Degrees). J. Opt. Soc. Am. 1978, 68 (6), 845–849. 

15. Monaco, W. A.; Kalb, J. T.; Johnson, C. A. Motion Detection in the Far Peripheral Visual 

Field; ARL-MR-0684; U.S. Army Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 

2007, pp 1–19. 

16. Johnson, C. A.; Leibowitz, H. W. Practice Effects for Visual Resolution in the Periphery. 

Percept. Psychophys. 1979, 25 (5), 439–442. 

17. Westheimer, G. Is Peripheral Visual Acuity Susceptible to Perceptual Learning in the 

Adult? Vision Res. 2001, 41 (1), 47–52. 

18. Yeshurun, Y.; Carrasco, M. Attention Improves or Impairs Visual Performance by 

Enhancing Spatial Resolution. Nature 1998, 396 (6706), 72–75. 
NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

12 

 1 DEFENSE TECHNICAL 

 (PDF INFORMATION CTR 

 only) DTIC OCA 

 8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD 

 STE 0944 

 FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 IMNE ALC HRR 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 RDRL CIM L 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 RDRL CIM P 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 RDRL D 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 1 DIR USARL 

 RDRL CIM G (BLDG 4600) 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

13 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED 

 RDRL HRM A J MARTIN 

 MYER CENTER BLDG 2700 RM 2D311 

 FORT MONMOUTH NJ 07703-5601 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED 

 RDRL HRM C A DAVISON 

 320 MANSCEN LOOP STE 115 

 FORT LEONARD WOOD MO 65473 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED 

 RDRL HRM DI T DAVIS 

 BLDG 5400 RM C242 

 REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 35898-7290 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED 

 RDRL HRS EA DR V J RICE 

 BLDG 4011 RM 217 

 1750 GREELEY RD 

 FORT SAM HOUSTON TX 78234-5002 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED 

 RDRL HRM DG R SPINE 

 BLDG 333 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED 

 ARMC FIELD ELEMENT 

 RDRL HRM CH C BURNS 

 THIRD AVE BLDG 1467B RM 336 

 FORT KNOX KY 40121 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED 

 AWC FIELD ELEMENT 

 RDRL HRM DJ D DURBIN 

 BLDG 4506 (DCD) RM 107 

 FORT RUCKER AL 36362-5000 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED 

 RDRL HRM CK J REINHART 

 10125 KINGMAN RD 

 FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-5828 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED 

 RDRL HRM AY M BARNES 

 2520 HEALY AVE 

 STE 1172 BLDG 51005 

 FORT HUACHUCA AZ 85613-7069 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED 

 RDRL HR MP D UNGVARSKY 

 POPE HALL BLDG 470 

 BCBL 806 HARRISON DR 

 FORT LEAVENWORTH KS 66027-2302

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED 

 RDRL HRM AJ J HANSBERGER 

 JFCOM FE 

 115 LAKEVIEW PKWY STE B 

 SUFFOLK VA 23435 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED 

 RDRL HRM DQ M R FLETCHER 

 NATICK SOLDIER CTR 

 AMSRD NSC WS E BLDG 3 RM 343 

 NATICK MA 01760-5020 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED 

 RDRL HRM AT J CHEN 

 12350 RESEARCH PKWY 

 ORLANDO FL 32826-3276 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED 

 RDRL HRM AT C KORTENHAUS 

 12350 RESEARCH PKWY 

 ORLANDO FL 32826 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED 

 RDRL HRM AS C MANASCO 

 SIGNAL TOWERS 

 BLDG 29808A RM 303A 

 FORT GORDON GA 30905-5233 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED 

 RDRL HRM CU 

 6501 E 11 MILE RD MS 284 

 BLDG 200A 2ND FL RM 2104 

 WARREN MI 48397-5000 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED 

 FIRES CTR OF EXCELLENCE 

 FIELD ELEMENT 

 RDRL HRM AF C HERNANDEZ 

 3040 NW AUSTIN RD RM 221 

 FORT SILL OK 73503-9043 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED 

 RDRL HRM AV S MIDDLEBROOKS 

 91012 STATION AVE RM 348 

 FORT HOOD TX 76544-5073 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED 

 RDRL HRM CN R SPENCER 

 DCSFDI HF 

 HQ USASOC BLDG E2929 

 FORT BRAGG NC 28310-5000 
NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

14 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED 

 RDRL HRM DW 

 E REDDEN 

 BLDG 4 CL 60 

 FORT BENNING GA 31905-5400 

 1 ARMY G1 

 (CD DAPE MR B KNAPP 

 only) 300 ARMY PENTAGON RM 2C489 

 WASHINGTON DC 20310-0300 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 5 DIR USARL 

 RDRL CIM G 

 S FOPPIANO 

 RDRL HR 

 T LETOWSKI 

 L ALLENDER 

 RDRL HRM B 

 J LOCKETT 

 RDRL HRS D 

 B AMREIN