276 R. M . SHAPLEY AND C.
ENROTH-CUGELL
constant contrast sensitivity (Boring, 1950). Fechner
proposed that a certain fixed amount of change in
internal sensation was required for threshold. We
can call this value ArT. He then proposed that ArT
was proportional to M/IB which is also fixed at
threshold in the Weber's Law range. The crucial
assumption was that r, the internal amount of
sensation, was simply a function of the amount of
light I; thus r = r(/). With this assumption, Fechner
could then treat Weber's Law as an approximation
to a differential equation for r. Thus, A / / I could
be approximated by a differential dI/I, while the
increment in sensation Ar could be approximated
by the differential dr. This led to Fechner's
differential equation:
dr = a . d I / I (12a)
where a is a proportionality constant. Integrating
this equation, he obtained,
r = a. log(/) + rl (12b)
where r, is the response at I = 1. Fechner's Law
(12b) is not right, as can be seen both theoretically
and empirically. First, the theoretical objection is
that r may not be viewed, without adequate
justification, as a simple function of the value of
/, the light, independent of the past history of
illumination. Because it is now well known that the
retina and brain have a finite time course of
response, and response amplitude and time course
are m o d i f i e d by the p r e v i o u s h i s t o r y o f
illumination, we now must consider r to be a
transformation of /, or, to be technical, a
functional. Therefore, the mathematical forms of
equations (12a, b) are not justified. Furthermore,
there are empirical consequences of Fechner's
theory. Fechner's reasoning leads us to believe that
Weber's Law implies that r must be proportional
to log L This is a very shallow saturating function
of L The much steeper N a k a - Rushton equation
is actually observed. In essence, F e c h n e r ' s
explanation of Weber's Law is in terms of response
c o m p r e s s i o n on a v e r y g e n t l y s a t u r a t i n g
i n t e n s i t y - r e s p o n s e function, rather than the
correct explanation in terms of automatic control
of gain on a much steeper i n t e n s i t y - r e s p o n s e
curve. C o m b i n i n g theoretical and empirical
objections, one may say that Fechner arrived at too
shallow an i n t e n s i t y - r e s p o n s e curve because his
theory was too simple (see Sperling and Sondhi,
1968 for a similar point of view).
Having discussed the functional role of the retinal
gain control in staving o f f saturation and
maintaining high contrast sensitivity, we will now
consider psychophysical results on the dependence
of visual sensitivity on the background or mean level
of illumination. A critical issue is, to what extent
is sensitivity determined by noise and to what extent
by retinal adaptation? Then we will consider the
properties and mechanisms of retinal adaptation.
2. P S Y C H O P H Y S I C A L LAWS OF L I G H T
ADAPTATION
As proposed in the Introduction, we believe light
adaptation to be an essential retinal mechanism for
allowing e f f o r t l e s s , i l l u m i n a t i o n - i n v a r i a n t
evaluation of the optical characteristics of reflecting
objects. One hardly ever is aware of adaptation
when it is performing this function. However, the
effects of adaptation become noticeable when one
observes self-luminous sources of light: stars,
lamps, candles, and televisions. These visual objects
change in brightness when the ambient level of
illumination changes. When the light level is high
enough, they disappear from view completely; they
fall below the perceptual threshold for increments.
Thus the action of light adaptation is exposed by
the daily cycle of the fading and reappearance of
the stars, though adaptation is working unobtru-
sively all the time to keep the perception of
reflecting objects unaffected by that same cycle.
The influence of ambient illumination on the
sensitivity for luminous sources like stars and
candles has been noticed since antiquity. A poetic
description and psychological explanation was
offered by Shakespeare in The Merchant of Venice.
As Portia and Nerissa return to Portia's villa
Belmont at night after the triumph over Shylock in
Venice, they speak about sensation and perception:
PORTIA
That light we see is burning in my hall.
How far that little candle throws his beams,
So shines a good deed in a naughty world.