The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Effect of random background inhomogeneity on observer detection performance
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Model observers for assessment of image quality.
Barrett, H. H., Yao, J., Rolland, J. P., & Myers, K. J. (1993) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.90.21.9758 · Cited by 531
Self-citationThe psychophysics of visual search
Palmer, J., Verghese, P., & Pavel, M. (2000) · Vision Research · doi:10.1016/s0042-6989(99)00244-8 · Cited by 454
Abbey, C. K., & Barrett, H. H. (2001) · Journal of the Optical Society of America A · doi:10.1364/josaa.18.000473 · Cited by 324
Self-citationImage quality in CT: From physical measurements to model observers
Verdun, F. R., Racine, D., Ott, J. G., Tapiovaara, M. J., Toroi, P., Bochud, F. O., Veldkamp, W. J. H., Schegerer, A., Bouwman, R. W., Giron, I. H., et al. (2015) · Physica Medica · doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.08.007 · Cited by 300
Schaefferkoetter, J., Casey, M., Townsend, D., & El Fakhri, G. (2013) · Physics in Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/58/5/1465 · Cited by 85
Metadata
- Authors
- Rolland, J. P., & Barrett, H. H.
- Venue
- Journal of the Optical Society of America A
- Publisher
- Optica Publishing Group
- 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.