Representing the observer in electro-optical

target acquisition models

Richard H. Vollmerhausen
760 Jacktown Road, Lexington, VA 24450
vollmerhausen@hughes.net
Abstract: Electro-optical target acquisition models predict the probability
that a human observer recognizes or identifies a target. To accurately model
targeting performance, the impact of imager blur and noise on human vision
must be quantified. In the most widely used target acquisition models,
human vision is treated as a black box that is characterized by its signal
transfer response and detection thresholds. This paper describes an
engineering model of observer vision. Characteristics of the observer model
are compared to psychophysical data. This paper also describes how to
integrate the observer model into both reflected light and thermal sensor
models.
2009 Optical Society of America
OCIS Codes: (110,3000) Image Quality Assessment; (110,3925) Metrics; (110,4100) Imaging
systems; (330,4060) Vision modeling
References and links:
1. U. S. Army, RDECOM, NVESD target acquisition models (1 June 2009), https://www.sensiac.org
2. J. A. Ratches, R. Vollmerhausen, and R. Driggers, Target Acquisition Performance Modeling of Infrared
Imaging Systems: Past, Present, and Future, IEEE Sens. J. 1(1), 3140 (2001).
3. R. H. Vollmerhausen, E. Jacobs, and R. Driggers, New metric for predicting target acquisition performance,
Opt. Eng. 43(11), 28062818 (2004).
4. R. Vollmerhausen, and A. L. Robinson, Modeling target acquisition tasks associated with security and
surveillance, Appl. Opt. 46(20), 42094221 (2007).
5. R. H. Vollmerhausen, S. Moyer, K. Krapels, R. G. Driggers, J. G. Hixson, and A. L. Robinson, Predicting the
probability of facial identification using a specific object model, Appl. Opt. 47(6), 751759 (2008).
6. R. H. Vollmerhausen, R. G. Driggers, and D. L. Wilson, Predicting range performance of sampled imagers by
treating aliased signal as target-dependent noise, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 25(8), 20552065 (2008).
7. Richard H. Vollmerhausen, Eddie Jacobs, Jon Hixson, and Mel Friedman, The Targeting Task Performance
(TTP) Metric; A New Model for Predicting Target Acquisition Performance, Technical Report AMSEL-NV-
TR-230, U.S. Army CERDEC, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060, (2005).
8. R. Driggers, R. Vollmerhausen, and K. Krapels, Target Identification Performance as a Function of Temporal
and Fixed Pattern Noise, Opt. Eng. 40(3), 443447 (2001).
9. N. M. Devitt, R. G. Driggers, R. H. Vollmerhausen, S. K. Moyer, K. A. Krapels, and J. D. OConnor, Target
recognition performance as a function of sampling, Proc. SPIE 4372, 7484 (2001).
10. R. H. Vollmerhausen, Predicting the effect of gain, level, and sampling on minimum resolvable temperature
measurements, Opt. Eng. (to be published).
11. A. van Meeteren, and J. M. Valeton, Effects of pictorial noise interfering with visual detection, J. Opt. Soc.
Am. A 5(3), 438444 (1988).
12. R. Vollmerhausen, Incorporating Display Limitations into Night Vision Performance Models, IRIS Passive
Sensors 2, 1131 (1995).
13. H. Richard, Vollmerhausen, Modeling the Performance of Imaging Sensors, In Electro-Optical Imaging:
System Performance and Modeling, Lucien Biberman Ed., (SPIE Press, 2000), Chapter 12.
14. L. Harry, Synder, Image quality: measure and visual performance, in Flat-Panel Display and CRTs, Lawrence
E. Tannas, Jr., Ed., (Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1985), Chapter 4.
15. N. S. Nagaraja, Effect of Luminance Noise on Contrast Thresholds, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 54(7), 950955 (1964).
16. D. G. Pelli, Effects of visual noise, Doctoral dissertation at the Physiological Laboratory, Churchill College,
Cambridge University, England, (1981). Available in PDF from denis.pelli@nyu.edu.
17. G. E. Legge, D. Kersten, and A. E. Burgess, Contrast discrimination in noise, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 4(2), 391404
(1987).
18. D. G. Pelli, and B. Farell, Why use noise? J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 16(3), 647 (1999).
19. M. Raghavan, Sources of visual noise, Ph.D. dissertation (Syracuse Univ., Syracuse, New York, 1989).
20. P. G. J. Barten, Formula for the contrast sensitivity of the human eye, Proc. SPIE 5294, 231238 (2004) (Paper
available on the Web at http://www.SPIE.org).
#113008 - $15.00 USD Received 18 Jun 2009; revised 20 Aug 2009; accepted 9 Sep 2009; published 14 Sep 2009
(C) 2009 OSA 28 September 2009 / Vol. 17, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 17253
21. R. J. Beaton, and W. W. Farley, Comparative study of the MTFA, ICS, and SQRI image quality metrics for
visual display systems, Armstrong Lab., Air Force Systems Command, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, Report AL-
TR-19920001, DTIC ADA252116, (1991).
22. J. Raymond, Stefanik, Performance modeling for image intensifier systems, Report NV-9314, Night Vision and
Electronic-Sensors Directorate, U.S. Army Research, Development, and Engineering Command, Fort Belvoir,
VA, (1993).
23. Ian Overington, Vision and Acquisition, (Crane, Russak & Company, 1976), Chapters 1,2,4.
24. G. J. Peter, Barten, Contrast Sensitivity of the Human Eye and Its Effect on Image Quality, (SPIE Press,
Bellingham, WA, 1999).
25. R. A. Moses and W. M. Hart, The temporal responsiveness of vision, in Adlers Physiology of the Eye: Clinical
Application, (Mosby 1987).
26. H. Davson, Physiology of the Eye, 5th ed., 221 & 271, (Macmillan Academic and Professional Ltd., 1990).
27. A. van Meeteren, and J. J. Vos, Resolution and contrast sensitivity at low luminances, Vision Res. 12(5), 825
IN2 (1972).
28. J. J. DePalma, and E. M. Lowry, Sine wave response of the visual system. II. Sine wave and square wave
contrast sensitivity, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 52(3), 328335 (1962).
29. A. Watanabe, T. Mori, S. Nagata, and K. Hiwatashi, Spatial sine wave response of the human visual system,
Vision Res. 8(9), 12451263 (1968).
30. F. L. Van Nes, and M. A. Bouman, Spatial modulation transfer in the human eye, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 57(3), 401
406 (1967).
31. A. S. Patel, Spatial resolution by the human visual system. The effect of mean retinal illuminance, J. Opt. Soc.
Am. 56(5), 689694 (1966).
32. F. W. Campbell, and J. G. Robson, Application of Fourier analysis to the visibility of gratings, J. Physiol.
197(3), 551566 (1968).
33. Kenneth R. Boss and Janet E. Lincoln, Engineering Data Compendium: Human Perception and Performance,
Vol. 1, Harry G. Armstrong Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, (1988).
34. V. Virsu, and J. Rovamo, Visual resolution, contrast sensitivity, and the cortical magnification factor, Exp.
Brain Res. 37(3), 475494 (1979).
35. C. R. Carlson, Sine-wave threshold contrast-sensitivity function: dependence on display size, RCA Review 43,
675683 (1982).
36. J. Rovamo, H. Kukkonen, and J. Mustonen, Foveal optical modulation transfer function of the human eye at
various pupil sizes, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 15(9), 2504 (1998).
37. F. W. Campbell, and R. W. Gubisch, Optical quality of the human eye, J. Physiol. 186(3), 558578 (1966).
38. A. van Meeteren, Calculations of the optical modulation transfer function of the human eye for white light,
Opt. Acta (Lond.) 21, 395412 (1974).
39. P. Artal, and R. Navarro, Monochromatic modulation transfer function of the human eye for different pupil
diameters: an analytic expression, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 11(1), 246249 (1994).
40. C. F. Stromeyer 3rd, and B. Julesz, Spatial-frequency masking in vision: critical bands and spread of masking,
J. Opt. Soc. Am. 62(10), 12211232 (1972).
41. Z.-L. Lu, and B. A. Dosher, Characterizing the spatial-frequency sensitivity of perceptual templates, J. Opt.
Soc. Am. 18(9), 20412053 (2001).
1. Introduction
In the most widely used target acquisition models, the observer is treated as a black box.
The observer is represented by Fourier domain characteristics like a transfer response and
frequency-dependent detection thresholds. The U.S. Army currently uses this type of target
acquisition model [1,2]. Published material supports the ability of these models to predict
target recognition and identification probabilities [39]. These models also accurately predict
minimum resolvable temperature (MRT) and minimum resolvable contrast (MRC) [10].
However, previous publications do not compare the observer vision model used in [310]
directly to psychophysical data. The validity of the vision model is inferred from the success
of the target acquisition model. This paper compares predictions of the engineering vision
model to vision data.
The observer model used in [310] represents a departure from previous assumptions
about the effect of noise on visual detection thresholds. Other target acquisition models are
based on the conclusions of van Meeteren and Valeton [11], whereas the current Army models
are based on [12,13]. The two observer models are described and contrasted.
Integrating the observer model into the target acquisition models is also described.
Imagers of reflected light are often modeled differently than thermal imagers. For reflected
light imagers, signal and noise calculations are based on integrating the detector electron flux.
For thermal imagers, noise calculations are often based on detectivity. That is, imager noise is
specified by a noise equivalent power (NEP). Both treatments are valid and lead to equivalent
#113008 - $15.00 USD Received 18 Jun 2009; revised 20 Aug 2009; accepted 9 Sep 2009; published 14 Sep 2009
(C) 2009 OSA 28 September 2009 / Vol. 17, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 17254
performance predictions. However, predicting human performance when the observer is using
an imager requires that internal eye noise be root sum squared (RSS) with imager noise. The
different procedure for implementing the RSS in reflected light and thermal imagers is
described.
Section 2 provides background for the psychophysical data discussion. This section
describes the contrast threshold function (CTF) The inverse of CTF is called the contrast
sensitivity function (CSF). The dependence of the target acquisition model on observer
characteristics is also described in Section 2. Section 3 describes the observer model. Section
3 also contrasts the current observer model to widely used alternatives that are based on the
conclusions of van Meeteren and Valeton [11]. Section 4 describes how the observer vision
model is integrated into target acquisition models. Section 5 compares observer characteristics
to psychophysical data. Conclusions are in Section 6.
2. Background
Before describing the observer vision model, a brief summary of the target acquisition model
is presented. The summary illustrates the importance of the observer model in making
accurate performance predictions. This section also describes naked eye CTF measurement.
CTF is a common way of quantifying visual performance. The CTF concept is critical to
understanding the performance model.
2.1 Contrast Threshold Function
CTF and its inverse CSF quantify the spatial frequency response of human vision. A sine
wave pattern is presented to an observer, and a response is solicited as to whether the sine
wave is visible. In Fig. 1, the observer is viewing a sine-wave pattern. While holding average
luminance to the eye constant, the contrast of the bar pattern is lowered until no longer visible
to the observer. That is, the dark bars are lightened and the light bars darkened, holding the
average constant, until the bar-space-bar pattern disappears. A decrease in contrast from left to
right is shown at top right in the figure. The goal of the experiment is to measure the
amplitude of the sine wave that is just visible to the observer.

Fig. 1. Experimental setup for measuring CTF/CSF. Top right shows variation in contrast.
Bottom right shows variation in spatial frequency.
Although experimental practice varies, one procedure is described in order to fully explain
the CTF concept. CTF data is sometimes taken using two alternative, forced choice (2afc)
experiments. In these experiments, the observer is shown one blank field and one with the sine
wave. The observer must choose which field has the sine wave. These experiments measure
the sine wave threshold where the observer chooses correctly half the time independent of
chance. That is, the 2afc experiment provides the threshold which yields a 0.75 probability of
correct choice. The procedure is repeated for various bar spacingsthat is, for various spatial
frequencies. See the bottom right of Fig. 1 for an illustration of spatial frequency; high spatial
frequency is at the left, lower spatial frequency to the right. The curve of threshold contrast
versus spatial frequency for each display luminance is called the CTF at that luminance.
Note that contrast threshold is the sine wave amplitude at which the observer is correct
half of the time independent of chance. There is a finite probability of seeing the sine wave at
reduced contrast, and there is some chance of not seeing the sine wave at contrasts above
threshold. The function (C/CTF) describes the probability of seeing a signal with contrast C
when eye threshold is CTF. The function is available from published data.
#113008 - $15.00 USD Received 18 Jun 2009; revised 20 Aug 2009; accepted 9 Sep 2009; published 14 Sep 2009
(C) 2009 OSA 28 September 2009 / Vol. 17, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 17255
2.2 Target acquisition model
The current Army target acquisition model is based on the Targeting Task Performance (TTP)
image quality metric (IQM). The TTP is a member of a generic class of IQM called
modulation transfer function (MTF) based metrics [14]. The values of different MTF based
IQM are calculated by varying n and r in Eq. (1). The TTP IQM is based on finding the best n
and r in Eq. (1) and 2 to match predictions to measured probabilities from target identification
experiments [3]. Experimental PID data are best matched by the values n equal one and r
equal to zero. Equation (1) with n equal to one and r equal to zero defines the TTP IQM.

1/ 2
2
sys sys
( , , range) ( , , range)
( )
CTF ( , ) CTF ( , )
n
tgt tgt
r r
ng
C C
d d
R

(
| |
(
= |
|
(
\


(1)

2
/ 84
0
2
( / 84) ( / 84)
t
PID erf e dt

= =

(2)
PID = probability of correct identification
= value of TTP metric
= horizontal spatial frequency in cycles per milliradian (mrad
1
)
= vertical spatial frequency in mrad
1

CTF
sys
= CTF when observer views sine waves through imager
C
tgt
= Fourier transform of target modulation contrast on the display
(C
tgt
/CTF
sys
) = probability of seeing contrast C
tgt
given threshold CTF
sys

R
ng
= target range in kilometers
84 = needed to achieve PID of 0.84
The difficulty of identifying one member of a target set depends on how much that target
looks like other members of the set. 84 is the value of that results in 0.84 probability of
task performance. 84 is determined empirically for each target set. 84 is different for
reflected light and thermal imagers. This is because the visual cues are different between those
spectral bands. However, once 84 is known for a target set, the PID for any imager
operating in the same spectral band can be predicted. The PID is a function of the ratio to
84.
To predict PID versus range, the following procedure is used. C
tgt
is found through the
application of radiometric models. The naked eye CTF is degraded by imager blur and noise
to establish CTF
sys
. is found at each range by a numerical integration corresponding to Eq.
(1). PID is predicted using and a known 84 in Eq. (2).
To predict the probability of identifying a specific target, Eq. (1) is used with the Fourier
transform of the targeted object. C
tgt
(,,range) is range dependent because and describe
angular frequencies at the imager. The target becomes angularly smaller as range between
target and imager increases. The Fourier transform of the target is used in the specific object
(SO) form of the target acquisition model [4,5].
In the widely used and distributed detect, recognize, and identify (DRI) models, however,
the assumption of constant target contrast is made. That is, in the frequency domain, C
tgt
has
the same amplitude at all spatial frequencies. Further, C
tgt
is range independent except for the
effect of atmosphere. The atmosphere makes C
tgt
range and weather dependent. However, C
tgt

is not associated with any target structure or size.
Using a constant C
tgt
greatly simplifies the model while retaining the utility of the model
for imager design purposes. Predicting the probability of identifying a specific target is not
#113008 - $15.00 USD Received 18 Jun 2009; revised 20 Aug 2009; accepted 9 Sep 2009; published 14 Sep 2009
(C) 2009 OSA 28 September 2009 / Vol. 17, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 17256
possible using the DRI model. However, the DRI model provides the following capabilities.
(a) The DRI model predicts the average probability of identifying objects in a sufficiently
diverse target set. (b) Since the target has frequency content at all spatial frequencies, good
imager frequency transfer response is rewarded. Specifying good DRI performance is similar
to specifying good optics MTF. A small optical blur and low imager noise results in improved
DRI performance. (c) Most importantly, the DRI model provides a means of optimizing
imager design for human viewing. The model quantifies the impact of imager design
decisions on human targeting performance.
To further simplify the Army DRI models, separability in Cartesian coordinates is
assumed. This is possible because the Fourier transform of the target is not used. Equation (1)
becomes Eq. (3).

1/ 2
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
ng ng
C C
TGT TGT
CTF CTF
sys sys
d d
TGT TGT
R R
sys sys
C C
CTF CTF



(
(
=
(
(


(3)
One problem with implementing Eq. (3) is that the CTF of the eye is not separable.
Nonetheless, the separable model is pursued by suggesting that the geometric mean of
horizontal and vertical eye CTF provides a reasonable representation of two dimensional
performance.

sys sys sys
CTF( , ) CTF( ) CTF( )
and therefore
CTF ( , ) CTF ( ) CTF ( )

(4)
Imager blur and noise are introduced into Eq. (1) and 3 through CTF
sys
. That is, blur and
noise degrade human vision. Accurately quantifying the effect of blur and noise on CTF is a
critical step in modeling targeting performance.
3. Observer Model
A simple, engineering model of the eye and visual cortex is shown in Fig. 2. This figure
shows the MTF associated with the eyeball and visual cortex. The figure also shows points
where noise is injected into the visual signal. Based on the experiments of Nagaraja [15] and
others [1619], the effect of noise can be explained by assuming the brain is taking the RSS of
display noise and some internal eye noise. Further, for display luminance above the de-Vries-
Rose Law region and for foveated and fixated targets, the RSS of eye and display noises
occurs in the visual cortex [19].
+++
spatial
frequency
eyeball MTF
cortical
noise
+
+
+
spatial
frequency
channels
spatial
frequency
cortical
noise
++
++
++
spatial
frequency
channels
spatial
frequency
quantal
&
neural
noise
display
signal
+ noise
+++
spatial
frequency
eyeball MTF
cortical
noise
+
+
+
spatial
frequency
channels
spatial
frequency
cortical
noise
++
++
++
spatial
frequency
channels
spatial
frequency
quantal
&
neural
noise
+++
spatial
frequency
eyeball MTF
spatial
frequency
eyeball MTF
cortical
noise
+
+
+
spatial
frequency
channels
spatial
frequency
cortical
noise
++
++
++
spatial
frequency
channels
spatial
frequency
quantal
&
neural
noise
display
signal
+ noise

Fig. 2. Engineering model of eye showing the spatial filters and noise sources acting on the
display signal and noise.
In Eq. (5), n
eye
is cortical noise and is display noise filtered by the eyeball and visual
cortex bandpass MTF. is also appropriately scaled in amplitude. Using Webers Law, eye
noise is proportional to display luminance. where is an empirically established calibration
#113008 - $15.00 USD Received 18 Jun 2009; revised 20 Aug 2009; accepted 9 Sep 2009; published 14 Sep 2009
(C) 2009 OSA 28 September 2009 / Vol. 17, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 17257
factor. Once is established through experiments, all the parameters in Eq. (6) are known or
measurable, and CTF
sys
is calculated.

2 2
2 2
2
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( )
eye
sys
eye
n
CTF CTF
n

| | +
= |
|
\
(5)

2 2
2 2
2
( )
( ) ( ) 1
sys
CTF CTF
L


| |
= +
|
\
(6)
Although is established empirically, the same value is used consistently for all types of
imagers and to predict target acquisition probabilities and bar pattern thresholds. That is, the
same value of is used here as in [310,12,13]. It is true that psychophysical data like eyeball
MTF and naked eye CTF varies between observers. Adjusting model predictions based on
known observer characteristics is, of course, sensible. However, fitting model predictions to
data based on assumed variations in the observer obscures all model errors.
Model calculation starts with measured naked eye thresholds and then estimates the
threshold elevation that results from adding imager blur and noise. The target acquisition
models use a numerical approximation to measured naked eye CTF provided by Barten [20].
The Barten numerical fit is selected based on Beatons comparison of several numerical
approximations to experimental data [21]. The Barten numerical approximation to naked eye
CTF data is given by Eq. (7) through 9.
( )
1
1 0.06
b b
CTF a e e

(
= +

(7)

( )
0.2
2
2
0.2 12
540 1 1
1 5.8
a
L
w

| |
| |
| = + +
|
|
\ +
\
(8)

0.15
29.2
5.24 1 b
L
| |
= +
|
\
(9)
The independent variables are the luminance of the display L in fL and the square root of
the angular display size w in degrees. In the Army models, w equals 15 degrees. This is
chosen as a nominal display field of view (FOV) at the eye.
Eyeball MTF is also needed to predict the effect of noise on threshold. Formulas to predict
eyeball MTF are taken from Stefaniks distillation of the data in Overington [22,23]. Total
eyeball MTF is predicted by multiplying optical, retina, and tremor MTF. Optical MTF
depends on pupil diameter. Pupil diameter versus light level is given by Table 1. For each
pupil diameter, the parameters i0 and f0 are given by Table 2. Equation (10) gives optics
MTF. The total eyeball MTF is then the product of optics, retina, and tremor MTF.
Table 1. Pupil diameter in millimeters (mm) versus light level
diameter 7.0 6.2 5.6 4.9 4.2 3.6 3.0 2.5
log fL
4 3 2 1
0 1 2 3
Table 2. Parameters for optics MTF.
Pupil diameter mm 1.5 2.0 2.4 3.0 3.8 4.9 5.8 6.6
f0 36 39 35 32 25 15 11 8
i0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.77 0.75 0.72 0.69 0.66

0
exp( ( / 0) )
i
optics
MTF f = (10)

1.21
exp( 0.375 )
retina
MTF = (11)
#113008 - $15.00 USD Received 18 Jun 2009; revised 20 Aug 2009; accepted 9 Sep 2009; published 14 Sep 2009
(C) 2009 OSA 28 September 2009 / Vol. 17, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 17258

2
exp( 0.4441 )
tremer
MTF = (12)
The visual cortex bandpass filters B() are taken from Barten [24], who created a
numerical fit for the visual cortex filters by using psychophysical data. See Eq. (13). Again,
this is a numerical fit and not a theoretical result. In Eq. (13), is the frequency of the sine
wave grating, and is a dummy variable used to integrate over noise bandwidth.
( ) ( )
{ }
2
' exp 2.2 log '/ B = (

(13)
Equation (14) predicts CTF
sys
for horizontal gratings viewed through an imager. A similar
formula is used for vertical gratings.

( )
1/ 2
2 2
2
/ ( )
( ) 1
( )
sys
sys
CTF SMAG
CTF
H L

| |
= +
|
\
(14)
= 169.6 root-Hertz mrad; see Section 4
SMAG = system magnification
= noise affecting threshold at grating frequency ; see Eq. (15)
(,) = noise spectral density in fL second
1/2
mrad
H
sys
() = System MTF from scene through display
H
eye
() = eyeball MTF
B() = Filters in the visual cortex
D() = MTF of display blur
( ) ( )
2 2
2 2
( ) ( '/ ) ( ') ' ( ) ( , ) '
eye eye
B D H D H d d


=

(15)
The observer model pertains to cone vision of foveated targets. Cones mediate vision
down to about 0.01 foot Lambert (fL). An observer at night might set his display as low as 0.1
fL. This low display luminance is a compromise between maintaining dark adaptation and
effective viewing of display information. Therefore, the display luminance levels of interest
here vary from about 0.1 fL to several hundred fL. However, there is little variation in visual
thresholds above about 100 fL.
The visual system filters temporally as well as spatially. However, an explicit adjustment
for the variation in temporal integration of the eye is not included in Eq. (14). We do not
know a priori whether variations in temporal integration alters the relationship between
luminance, display noise, and cortical noise. Although increasing temporal integration
certainly applies additional filtering to display noise, it also increases the gain applied to both
display signal and noise.
Further, no clear evidence exists that cone temporal integration is light level dependent.
Cone temporal integration does not change with a variation of photopic light level down to
about 10 fL [25]. At photopic light levels, adaptation is by pigment bleaching [26]. Data is not
available on cone temporal integration below 10 fL. It is certainly true, however, that most of
the observed increase in temporal integration at low luminance is due to the rod system. Rods
begin to come out of saturation at 10 fL. Furthermore, regardless of what is actually
happening physiologically, the match between the Eq. (14) model and I2 data suggests that a
temporal adjustment is not needed in Eq. (14) [10].
This does not mean, however, that the eye treats static and dynamic noise equally.
Certainly anecdotal experience with electro-optical systems suggests otherwise. This is a
change in the nature of display noise, not a change in the visual system. For a non-framing
imager, noise is integrated for a dwell time, not the cone integration time. For a framing
#113008 - $15.00 USD Received 18 Jun 2009; revised 20 Aug 2009; accepted 9 Sep 2009; published 14 Sep 2009
(C) 2009 OSA 28 September 2009 / Vol. 17, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 17259
imager with frame rate F
R
second
1
, single frame noise is (0.04F
R
) more effective at masking
signal than dynamic noise. The value 0.04 seconds for cone integration is taken from [25].
3.1 Alternative observer model
Note that Bartens CTF theory [24] is not used in the Army models. That theory is partially
based on the conclusions of van Meeteren and Valeton [11]. Based on an experiment at one
photopic display luminance, they conclude that eye noise is approximately proportional to a
fixed fraction of the measured, naked eye CTF. After appropriate scaling and filtering, noise
modulation at the display is summed in quadrature with naked eye CTF as shown in Eq. (16).
is an empirically derived proportionality constant. Note that Eq. (14) and 16 are not
equivalent.

2 2
2 2
2
1 ( )
( ) ( )
( )
sys
CTF CTF
H L

| |
= +
|
\
(16)
As discussed in [12,13], Eq. (16) fails to predict experimental image intensifier (I2) data.
The I2 data includes a wide variation in both display luminance and spatial frequency, and the
assumptions in [11] are not appropriate. The assumption that eye noise is a fixed fraction of
measured eye CTF is discussed here to make clear that it is not used in the [310] models.
4. Integrating the observer model into target acquisition models
This section describes three different procedures commonly used to model imager signal and
noise. In each case, display average luminance is set to L fL, and this alone establishes the
magnitude of eye noise. The parameter is a gain factor that scales display noise in order to
RSS with cortical noise. This gain factor accounts for visual mechanisms and does not depend
on any imager characteristics. However, any change in the assumed relationship between
imager noise and display luminance changes the value of .
The radiometric calculations used to find detector photo electrons are covered in many
texts and are not described here. This section focuses on the relationship between detector
noise and eye noise. Further, to simplify the discussion, assume that the noise () is
spectrally uniform with spectral density . The noise filters and noise integration are
represented by (). Neither SMAG nor H
sys
contribute to the current discussion; assume that
both equal one. Also, this section only discusses imagers with temporally varying noise.
Equation (14) simplifies to Eq. (17).
( )
1/ 2
2 2
2
( )
( ) 1
sys
CTF CTF
L


| |
= +
|
\
(17)
The first modeling procedure is used in this paper to analyze psychophysical experiments.
The images are computer generated. The standard deviation of the pixel-to-pixel noise in a
single frame is m fL. F
R
is display frame rate. If F
R
is high, there are many frames in an eye
integration time t
eye
of 0.04 seconds. For a low F
R
, there are fewer frames in a period t
eye
. The
standard deviation of spatial noise in an eye integration time is m(t
eye
F
R
). The signal in an
eye integration time is t
eye
F
R
L. is an empirically determined proportionality constant.
( )
1/ 2
2 2
2 2 2
( )
( ) 1
eye R
sys
eye R
m t F
CTF CTF
t F L


| |
= + |
|
\
(18)
Equation (19) is used to model experiments where L and m are provided by the
experimenter. Imager noise m/F
R
is the standard deviation after averaging F
R
frames.
Average display luminance L is the mean value of the average frame. In Eq. (19), equals
/t
eye
and has a value of 169.6 root Hertz.
#113008 - $15.00 USD Received 18 Jun 2009; revised 20 Aug 2009; accepted 9 Sep 2009; published 14 Sep 2009
(C) 2009 OSA 28 September 2009 / Vol. 17, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 17260
( )
1/ 2
2 2
2
( ) /
( ) 1
R
sys
m F
CTF CTF
L


| |
= +
|
\
(19)
The second modeling procedure is used when modeling reflected light imagers like image
intensifiers. E
photo
is the electron flux per second in the detector. Signal is proportional to t
eye

E
photo
. Imager noise affecting the eye is (t
eye
E
photo
).
( )
1/ 2
2
2 2
( )
( ) 1
eye photo
sys
eye photo
t E
CTF CTF
t E


| |
= + |
|
\
(20)
( )
1/ 2
2
2
( )
( ) 1
photo
sys
photo
E
CTF CTF
E


| |
= + |
|
\
(21)
For modeling procedure 2, again equals /t
eye
and has a value of 169.6 root Hertz.
Luminance is proportional to the electrons integrated in one second. Noise is the square root
of signal electrons.
Model procedure 3, however, leads to a different value of . In the U. S. Army thermal
model, signal and noise are expressed in terms of radiant quantities. Let S represent the watts
on the detector that raises display luminance from black to average. Let
det
be the NEP in
watts. Using procedure 3, the typical way to express noise to signal ratio for an eye integration
time is shown in Eq. (22).
det
is multiplied by the square root of bandwidth which is 1/t
eye
.
Equation (23) shows noise to signal ratio using model procedure 2. If S generates E
photo

electrons per second in the detector, then Eq. (22) and 23 give the same numerical answer for
noise to signal ratio. But the physical models are not equivalent.

det
noise to signal =
eye
t
S

(22)

/
noise to signal =
photo eye
photo
E t
E
(23)
Equation (23) represents the noise to signal ratio established after an eye integration time.
Equation (22) gives the same noise to signal ratio, but Eq. (22) is established after one second.
As an example of the problem, the power t
eye
S generates t
eye
E
photo
electrons after one second,
not after an eye integration time. S produces an electron flux, whereas E
photo
results from
integrating electron flux over time. A parallel can be drawn between E
photo
and joules but not
between E
photo
and watts.
Modeling procedure 3 requires a different approach. Calculate signal and noise terms at
one second, not at t
eye
seconds. S generates display luminance L, and the magnitude of eye
noise is the same as for modeling procedures 1 and 2. However, now eye noise is summed
over a second, not t
eye
seconds. Since eye noise is random, the one second eye noise RMS is
1/t
eye
larger. CTF
sys
for modeling procedure 3 is given by Eq. (25).

thermal eye
t = (24)
( )
1/ 2
2 2
det
2
( )
( ) 1
thermal
sys
CTF CTF
S


| |
= +
|
\
(25)
5. Comparing observer characteristics to psychophysical data
Section 5.1 compares the naked eye CTF numerical fit given by Eq. (7) through 9 to empirical
data. Section 5.2 discusses predicting eyeball MTF. Direct measurements of total eyeball
#113008 - $15.00 USD Received 18 Jun 2009; revised 20 Aug 2009; accepted 9 Sep 2009; published 14 Sep 2009
(C) 2009 OSA 28 September 2009 / Vol. 17, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 17261
MTF are not available. However, the experimental bases of the individual component MTF
described by Eq. (10) through 12 are discussed. Section 5.3 compares Eq. (14) predictions of
the effect of non-white noise to empirical data. Barten compares his CTF model using Eq.
(16) to the same data [24]. In all cases, the current comparisons use Eq. (7) through 14
without changing calibration parameters to fit the model to measurements. That is, L and are
determined by the experimental setup, but w equals 15 degrees, and equals 169.6 root Hertz.
5.1 Comparison to contrast threshold function measurements
A great deal of CSF data exists, but the measurement conditions are not always germane to
the observer model. CSF characterizes observer signal threshold versus spatial frequency.
CSF represents the observer in a Fourier domain model. To the extent practical, the sine wave
stimulus should represent a single frequency. Further, the CSF data selected for comparison to
the observer model represents typical display conditions.
The CSF data are selected using the following criteria [2730]. The FOV at the eye is 6
degrees or greater. The grating is presented statically; no temporal variation in intensity
occurs during the presentation period. The length of the sine wave perpendicular to the bar-
space-bar modulation is constant. Also, with one exception, the data are collected using
natural vision. That is, the observer uses both eyes and no artificial pupil.
CSF data are often collected with monocular viewing and an artificial pupil of 2 to 2.5
millimeters [3032]. Monocular viewing is modeled by dividing binocular CSF by the square
root of two [Section 1.802 in 33]. However, the small artificial pupil lowers the effective
luminance to the eye and improves eyeball MTF. At photopic luminances, decreased
luminance has a small effect on CSF. The improved eyeball MTF, however, increases CSF at
high spatial frequencies. Nonetheless, some of the data in [30] are used here because it
provides CSF at luminance levels not available from other sources. Also, this particular data
are widely referenced [Section 1.632 in 33].
Figure 3 through 5 compare the numerical CSF generated using Eq. (7) through 9 to CSF
data taken with natural vision. Figure 6 compares numerical CSF to the data of [30]. The data
cover luminances from 0.03 to 300 fL. The data provide three luminances in the important
range between 0.1 and 10 fL [30].
As shown in the figures, data from different experimenters using different procedures and
observers does vary. However, the fit between the numerical CSF and data is good. As
expected, the best fit is to van Meeteren and Voss data. This data is used in creating the Eq.
(6) through 9 numerical fit. However, the fit to the remaining data is also quite adequate. The
model is pessimistic at high frequencies compared to Fig. 6 data. However, this data is
collected with an artificial pupil, and the discrepancy at high frequencies is expected.
5.1.1 The effect of field of view on contrast sensitivity
In the observer model described here, w in Eq. (8) is fixed at 15 degrees. However, in [20], the
parameter w is set to the display FOV. The different approach results from different
objectives. Based on Bartens use of the [20] CSF fit in his own IQM [24], it is probable that
he intended the [20] formula to encompass many visual factors. However, varying w in Eq.
(8) is not consistent with the goal of the observer model. This section discusses the FOV
parameter w and the reasons for maintaining a fixed value.
#113008 - $15.00 USD Received 18 Jun 2009; revised 20 Aug 2009; accepted 9 Sep 2009; published 14 Sep 2009
(C) 2009 OSA 28 September 2009 / Vol. 17, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 17262
1
10
100
1000
0. 01 0. 10 1. 00 10. 00
spat ial frequency 1/ mrad
C
S
F
2.9 f L dat a 0. 03 f L dat a
0.03 fL model 2. 9 fL model

Fig. 3. Numerical CSF
compared to the data of van
Meeteren and Vos [27].
1
10
100
1000
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
spatial frequency 1/mrad
C
S
F
10 fL data 10 fL model

Fig. 4. Numerical CSF
compared to the data of
Watanabe, Mori, Nagata, and
Hiwatashi [29].
1
10
100
1000
0.01 0. 10 1.00 10.00
spatial frequency 1/mrad
C
S
F
300 fL dat a 20 fL data
300 fL model 20 fL model

Fig. 5. Numerical CSF
compared to the data of
DePalma and Lowry [28].
1
10
100
1000
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
spati al frequency 1/mrad
C
S
F
88 fL data
8.8 fL data
0.88 fL data
0.088 fL data
8.8 fL model
88 fL model
0.088 fL model
0.88 fL model

Fig. 6. Numerical CSF
compared to the data of Van
Nes and Bouman [30].
When FOV to the eye is small, the number of sine wave cycles presented to the observer is
limited. For example, for a 2 degree FOV and a spatial frequency of 0.25 mrad
1
, only 8.7 sine
wave cycles fit on the display. Measured CSF varies depending on the number of sine wave
cycles presented to the observer [Section 1.631 in 33,34,35]. Figure 7 compares the data of
Hoekstra, van der Goot, and van den Brink [33] to the data of Virsu and Rovamo [34]. The
[33] data is taken at 7 fL whereas the [34] data is taken at 3 fL. CSF improves substantially up
to 7 or 8 cycles with a small additional improvement to 10 or 11 cycles. This behavior occurs
at all spatial frequencies. Regardless of spatial frequency, CSF does not change when ten or
more cycles are displayed.
In [20], the dependence of CSF on w is based on the data of Carlson [35]. The data of
Carlson is consistent with the data of [33] and [34] in two respects. Increasing the number of
presented grating cycles improves CSF, and the relative improvement is consistent at all
spatial frequencies. However, in the Carlson data, some improvement in CSF is seen when
presenting tens and even hundreds of cycles. Carlson presents the sine waves against a dark
surrounding field. That is, when the FOV is small, the observer views a small bright area in an
otherwise dark room. As the number of sine wave cycles increases, the adapting luminance
FOV also increases. This is not consistent with the procedure of [33] and [34], who present a
constant adapting luminance FOV. In the Carlson experiment, the adaptive state of the eye
improves as the number of presented sine wave cycles increases. CSF is affected by both the
number of cycles and the adapting luminance FOV.
The Eq. (7) through 9 numerical fit accurately predicts CSF when w equals 15 degrees.
However, for our purposes, the numerical model is not accurate for smaller fields of view.
#113008 - $15.00 USD Received 18 Jun 2009; revised 20 Aug 2009; accepted 9 Sep 2009; published 14 Sep 2009
(C) 2009 OSA 28 September 2009 / Vol. 17, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 17263
Figure 8 compares the data of Campbell and Robson [32] to the CSF numerical fit. The CSF
data for both 2 degree and 10 degree fields of view are equal at and above 0.25 mrad
1
. At this
spatial frequency, there are 9 sine wave cycles in the 2 degree FOV. Based on the data in Fig.
7, all CSF at higher frequencies should be equal, and the CSF measurements in Fig. 8 bear
this out. However, as seen in the figure, the Eq. (7) through 9 numerical CSF predictions are
different at higher spatial frequencies. Changing w in Eq. (8) does not accurately predict the
effect of changing FOV.
In the observer model, CTF or CSF represents observer Fourier domain response. When
sine wave patterns are used to measure frequency response, limiting the number of sine wave
cycles results in an error. The proper use of Fig. 7 is to correct measurements made with a few
sine wave cycles. Figure 7 is not used to degrade observer performance when the FOV is
small.
0
1
2
3
0 20 40
Number of cycles
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

C
S
F
Data [34] Data [33] fit

Fig. 7. The figure shows
relative improvement in CSF
as the number of sine wave
cycles presented to the
observer increases. There is
little improvement after about
10 cycles.
100
1000
0.01 0. 10 1. 00
spatial frequency 1/mrad
C
S
F
data 10
data 2
cycle f it
numerical
CSF 10
numerical
CSF 2

Fig. 8. CSF data at 10 degree
and 2 degree FOV. The
dashed lines show numerical
CSF predictions. Note that the
numerical fit does not predict
CSF equal at and above 0.25
mrad
1
. The solid line (cycle
fit) show the 10 degree CSF
data degraded by the amount
indicated in Fig. 7.
5.2 Comparison to eyeball modulation transfer function measurements
Overington discusses the various factors affecting eyeball MTF [23]. His goal, like ours, is to
quantify all of the factors affecting natural vision. Most researchers, however, measure the
MTF of the ocular optics from the cornea to the retinal surface.
Figure 9 compares Eq. (10) optical eyeball MTF to the predictions of various researchers
[3639]. A pupil size of 4 millimeters (mm) is chosen for two reasons. First, that size best
represents pupil diameter for display luminances between 0.1 and 100 fL. Second, all
researchers provide estimates for the 4 mm size. The [3739] results are based on various
physical measurement techniques. The [36] eyeball MTF predictions are based on a
psychophysical technique that depends on a proposed theory of contrast detection.
Unfortunately, the predictions from various researchers are widely spread.
However, Eq. (10) predictions are closest to [37] results. The [37] data are based on
physical measurements of a large number of observers. Figure 10 shows Eq. (10) optical
MTF, Eq. (11) retinal MTF, and Eq. (12) tremor MTF. The average data from [37] is also
plotted in Fig. 10. All MTF are for a 4 mm pupil. Equation (10) provides a reasonable
estimate for the actual data from [37]. As seen in Fig. 10, tremor and retina MTF are less
important.
#113008 - $15.00 USD Received 18 Jun 2009; revised 20 Aug 2009; accepted 9 Sep 2009; published 14 Sep 2009
(C) 2009 OSA 28 September 2009 / Vol. 17, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 17264
5.3 Comparison to non-white noise measurements
In this section, predictions of Eq. (14) are compared to CSF data collected in the presence of
non-white noise. Comparisons are made to [11] and [40]. Equation (14) relates to absolute
sine wave threshold data, not increment thresholds or circular disks. Therefore, the data in
[15] and [17] are not used. In [41], the sine wave grating stimulus is present 8.3 milliseconds
(msec) out of a 283 msec frame. Although all of the experiments use framing displays,
imagery presented at a 60 Hertz rate is perceived as static. Presenting the grating only once
each 17 frames violates the assumption of a static stimulus. The data in [41] are therefore not
used.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
spatial frequency 1/mrad
M
T
F
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
model

Fig. 9. MTF of eyeball ocular
optics from various sources.
Pupil size is 4 mm.MTF for a
4 mm pupil.
0
0. 2
0. 4
0. 6
0. 8
1
0 1 2
spat ial frequency 1/ mrad
M
T
F Opt ical
Ret inal
Tremor
Dat a

Fig. 10. Optical, retinal, and
tremor. Optical MTF data for
a 4 mm pupil are also shown
[37].
In the experiment of van Meeteren and Valeton [11], horizontal gratings are presented on a
180 by 180 pixel display with 29 fL average luminance. The display subtends a 1 by 1 degree
FOV at the eye. The display has 8 bit quantization, and this presents problems. Quantizing the
full dynamic range of the display into 256 gray levels provides a minimum observable
contrast of 1/128. Further, at low contrast, the presented stimulus is not sinusoidal. Sufficient
quantization levels do not exist to create a sine wave waveform with a contrast amplitude of
0.01. Nonetheless, the medium and coarse grain data are usable, because the observed
contrasts permit two or more quantization levels.
The medium grain noise is generated by assigning random values to every fifth pixel
horizontally and vertically. The intermediate pixel values are then interpolated. The coarse
grain noise is generated by assigning random values to every 20th pixel and then interpolating
the remaining values. Standard deviation of both medium and coarse noise is 0.22. The noise
is static.
Figure 11 and 12 compare model predictions to data with medium and coarse grain noise,
respectively. In both figures, the abscissa is spatial frequency in mrad
1
and the ordinate is
CTF
sys
. Data for the two subjects are shown separately.
Stromeyer and Julesz [40] study the effect of bandlimited noise on CTF
sys
. Noise with a
flat spectrum up to 20 kilohertz (kHz) is low pass, high pass, or band pass filtered and then
displayed horizontally on an xy monitor. The analog filter rolls off at 42 decibels (dB) per
octave. Display luminance is 5 fL. A high frequency applied to the vertical creates vertical
stripes with horizontal random intensity variation. The 8 msec sweeps are separated by 16
msec. A physical mask on the display limits open screen area to 6.5 by 17 centimeters. Most
observations are made from 4 meters.
Figure 13 through 16 compare model predictions to data for five band pass filters. Table 3
provides the band number, 3 dB frequencies for low pass and high pass cutoffs, and figure
number. In each figure, abscissa is spatial frequency and ordinate is CTF
sys
/CTF minus one.
#113008 - $15.00 USD Received 18 Jun 2009; revised 20 Aug 2009; accepted 9 Sep 2009; published 14 Sep 2009
(C) 2009 OSA 28 September 2009 / Vol. 17, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 17265
Figure 17 shows model to data comparison for low pass filtered noise. The figure plots
model predictions on the abscissa and data on the ordinate. The straight line represents the
ideal where model predictions equal measured data. Data are shown for sine wave patterns of
0.14, 0.29, and 0.57 mrad
1
. For each sine wave frequency, four low pass noise cutoffs are
used. The cutoffs are at the grating frequency and at half octave steps below the grating
frequency. The RMS noise is maintained at 0.15 modulation.
Table 3. Parameters for band pass filters [40]
band number
low pass 3dB mrad
1
high pass 3dB mrad
1

fig.
1 0.036 0.072 13
2 0.14 0.29 14
3 0.57 1.15 13
4 0.072 0.14 15
5 0.29 0.57 16
The [40] data are widely scattered between the two subjects. The [11] data show
unexpected behavior at low spatial frequencies. An absolute match between the observer
model and predictions is not expected. However, the observer model does predict the effect of
non-white noise on CSF. In all cases, the data trends are predicted by the model. The model
accurately predicts the frequencies at which non-white noise affects CSF. Onset and cessation
of CSF degradation is predicted correctly.
1
10
100
0.01 0.1 1 10
freqyency 1/ mrad
C
S
F
s
y
s
model obs1 obs2

Fig. 11. Comparison of Eq.
(14) model to medium grain
noise data from [11].
1
10
100
0.01 0.1 1 10
f requency 1/mrad
C
S
F
s
y
s
model obs1 obs2

Fig. 12. Comparison of Eq.
(14) model to coarse grain
noise data from [11] Fig. 13.
#113008 - $15.00 USD Received 18 Jun 2009; revised 20 Aug 2009; accepted 9 Sep 2009; published 14 Sep 2009
(C) 2009 OSA 28 September 2009 / Vol. 17, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 17266
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 0.4 0. 8 1.2
spat ial frequency 1/ mrad
C
T
F
s
y
s
/
C
T
F

-

1
Dat a obs 1 Data obs 2 Model

Fig. 13. Comparison of Eq.
(14) model to data for noise
bands 1 and 3 in Table 3 [40].
0
2
4
6
8
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
spatial frequency 1/mrad
C
T
F
s
y
s
/
C
T
F

-

1
data obs 1 data obs 2 model

Fig. 14. Comparison of Eq.
(14) model to data for noise
band 2 in Table 3 [40].
0
5
10
15
20
25
0.0 0. 1 0.2 0.3 0. 4 0.5
spat ial frequency 1/mrad
C
T
F
n
/
C
T
F

-

1
Data obs 1 Data obs 2 Model

Fig. 15. Comparison of Eq.
(14) model to data for noise
band 4 in Table 3 [40].
0
2
4
6
8
10
0.0 0.4 0.8 1. 2
spatial frequency 1/ mrad
C
T
F
s
y
s
/
C
T
F

-

1
Data obs 1 Data obs 2 Model

Fig. 16. Comparison of Eq.
(14) model 4 in to data for
noise band 5 in Table 3 [40].
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Model predict ions
D
a
t
a

Fig. 17. Model versus data for low pass filters. The line represents a perfect fit between data on
the ordinate and predictions on the abscissa.
#113008 - $15.00 USD Received 18 Jun 2009; revised 20 Aug 2009; accepted 9 Sep 2009; published 14 Sep 2009
(C) 2009 OSA 28 September 2009 / Vol. 17, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 17267
6. Conclusions
This paper describes an observer vision model where the dominant eye noise is cortical. Eye
noise is proportional to display luminance. Previous observer models assumed eye noise to be
a fixed fraction of naked eye CTF. The new observer model leads to success in predicting
target identification probabilities and in predicting MRT and MRC experimental results. This
paper compares predictions of the observer model to psychophysical data.
The match between model and data is excellent considering the experimental errors. CSF
data varies considerably from experiment to experiment. Also, the experiments on the effect
of non-white noise on CSF show a great deal of variability between observers. Nonetheless,
the observer model accurately predicts experimental behavior. The model predicts the impact
of display luminance on CSF. The model also predicts the relative impact of noise at one
frequency on the CSF at a different frequency. In all cases, the model either accurately
predicts the data or at least predicts the trends in observed behavior.
The choice of Bartens numerical fit to CTF data is based on simplicity and ease of
obtaining the reference. However, the numerical fit is not accurate when predicting the effect
of display FOV on CSF. In the observer model, display FOV is fixed at 15 degrees.
Maintaining the display FOV parameter w at a fixed value provides a more accurate observer
model than varying w.
Further, the observer model provides MTF and detection thresholds to represent observer
vision in Fourier domain models. Associating CSF variations caused by experimental
limitations with observer vision is not consistent with the goal of the observer model. In the
target acquisition models, a Fourier representation of the target is transduced by the imager for
viewing by the observer. Variations in the target signature and limitations in the imager
transfer response are handled separately from observer characteristics. The Barten numerical
fit is used to represent measured CSF data. It is not used to model the effect of target
variations or imager design changes on observer performance.
The approximation for eyeball MTF is reasonably accurate and difficult to replace. Most
eyeball data is collected with eye muscles paralyzed and using artificial pupils. Generally, the
scientific objective is to understand the separate contribution of the cornea, lens, vitreous
humor, and retina. This information is hard to generalize to a total MTF representing the eye
with a natural pupil. The Overington compilation is still valuable.
This paper also describes how to integrate the observer model into different types of
imager hardware models. Some models integrate detector photo electrons to calculate signal
and noise. Other models represent both signal and noise in terms of radiant flux. The observer
does not change. However, the different modeling assumptions do change the value of the
empirical calibration constant that relates internal observer eye noise to imager noise. The
reason for changing the value of is discussed, and values for both types of models are
provided.
#113008 - $15.00 USD Received 18 Jun 2009; revised 20 Aug 2009; accepted 9 Sep 2009; published 14 Sep 2009
(C) 2009 OSA 28 September 2009 / Vol. 17, No. 20 / OPTICS EXPRESS 17268