Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 272

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Effect of random background inhomogeneity on observer detection performance

Rolland, J. P., Barrett, H. H.·1992·Journal of the Optical Society of America A

Abstract

Many psychophysical studies of the ability of the human observer to detect a signal superimposed upon a uniform background, where both the signal and the background are known exactly, have been reported in the literature. In such cases, the ideal or the Bayesian observer is often used as a mathematical model of human performance since it can be readily calculated and is a good predictor of human performance for the task at hand. If, however, the background is spatially inhomogeneous (lumpy), the ideal observer becomes nonlinear, and its performance becomes difficult to evaluate. Since inhomogeneous backgrounds are commonly encountered in many practical applications, we have investigated the effects of background inhomogeneities on human performance. The task was detection of a two-dimensional Gaussian signal superimposed upon an inhomogeneous background and imaged through a pinhole imaging system. Poisson noise corresponding to a certain exposure time and aperture size was added to the detected image. A six-point rating scale technique was used to measure human performance as a function of the strength of the nonuniformities (lumpiness) in the background, the amount of blur of the imaging system, and the amount of Poisson noise in the image. The results of this study were compared with earlier theoretical predictions by Myers et al. [J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 7, 1279 (1990)] for two observer models: the optimum linear discriminant, also known as the Hotelling observer, and a nonprewhitening matched filter. Although the efficiency of the human observer relative to the Hotelling observer was only approximately 10%, the variation in human performance with respect to varying aperture size and exposure time was well predicted by the Hotelling model. The nonprewhitening model, on the other hand, fails to predict human performance in lumpy backgrounds in this study. In particular, this model predicts that performance will saturate with increasing exposure time and drop precipitously with increasing lumpiness; neither effect is observed with human observers.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1364/josaa.9.000649

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 272

Metadata

Authors
Rolland, J. P., & Barrett, H. H.
Venue
Journal of the Optical Society of America A
Published
1992-05-01
Volume
9
Issue
5
Pages
649
ISSN
  • 1084-7529 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-8532
OpenAlex
W2117863806
Cited by
272
References
0
FWCI
1.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effect of random background inhomogeneity on observer detection performance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1364/josaa.9.000649
The paper
Rolland, J. P., & Barrett, H. H. (1992). Effect of random background inhomogeneity on observer detection performance. Journal of the Optical Society of America A. https://doi.org/10.1364/josaa.9.000649

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.