HF700: Foundations in Human Factors

DESIGN REVIEW 1: PERCEPTUAL PROCESSING SYSTEMS

LAMPMAN, COLE
10/18/2021
1

Introduction
The first step in creating and understanding our reality is sensation – the effect of
stimulus in the world on our sensory organs. For humans without visual impairment, visual
perception is the primary and most fundamental sensory process. The simplified process of visual
perception, which will be covered in detail later in this paper, begins with light from a stimulus
entering the eye, passing through the cornea and into the retina where it is received by the
photoreceptors which then stimulate cells on the optic nerve, sending the information to the brain
(Cornsweet, 1970; Thibos, 2000; Wald, 1964).
The evolutionary need for visual perception and the highly complex visual processing
apparatus is manifold. Two of the most important factors are the need for finding food and the
need to detect danger. Being able to discriminate objects from their backgrounds was and is
essential for human survival as well as more trivial and modern ventures like interacting with
products and interfaces. In this paper, I will review the relevant literature on the aspects of visual
perception and our visual sensory organs and conduct a review of the Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority (MBTA) fare vending machine, providing recommendations in ways it
can be improved.

Organs of Perception
The eye is the first point of contact in the visual perceptive system. Light that enters the
eye is refracted by the cornea where it then passes into the pupil and through the internal lens
(Thibos, 2000). According to Campbell and Green (1965), “two main factors affect the quality of
images formed on the retina by the optics of the eye – focus and pupil size” (p.583). Flexibility of
the internal lens enables objects at different distances to come into focus. (De Valois & De
Valois, 1990; Thibos, 2000). Intensity of the stimulus is regulated by the muscles in the iris which
control the size of the pupil. The pupil, thus, acts as an aperture, allowing or constricting light
from entering the retina (De Valois & De Valois, 1990; Thibos 2000).
Once the light reaches the retina, it is received by a mosaic of photoreceptors of two
types: rods and cones (Cornsweet 1970; Curcio et al., 1990; Wald, 1945). Rods are extremely
sensitive in low light conditions and, in a dark-adapted eye, can detect photons down to the single
digit (Hecht et al, 1942; Wald 1945). Rods contribute to our peripheral vision, owing to their
location in the retina and, while they possess great sensitivity to miniscule amounts of light, rods
do not contribute to visual acuity (Cornsweet, 1970; Hecht et al., 1942; Wald, 1945). Visual
acuity is largely attributed to the other type of photoreceptor – the cone.
2

Cones are essential to both our ability to see in brighter conditions as well as our ability
to see color (Wald, 1945). The small area of the retina known as the fovea, which is associated
with the center of human vision, contains the densest population of cones and the spacing of
cones in this region is strongly associated with visual acuity (Curcio et al., 1990; Thibos 2000;
Wald, 1945). Color vision is driven by cone function; cones can be subdivided into classes
depending on the wavelengths of light they process, S-Cones (short wavelength), M-cones
(medium), and L-Cones (long). (Cornsweet, 1970; De Valois & De Valois, 1990; Marks et al.,
1964; Thibos, 2000,).
The brain receives the mental image that is contained in the light array that reflects onto
the retina by means of neural cells connected to the photoreceptors. The cells that are connected
to the optical nerve are called ganglion cells. Ganglion cells pass information about their
receptive field, or the total area of receptors and neurons that cause a ganglion cell to fire, to the
V1 region of the brain where a mental image is formed (Cornsweet, 1970; De Valois & De
Valois, 1990; Shapely, 2000). The receptive field exhibits a “center-surround relationship”
meaning that when light falls on the center of the field, it either excites or inhibits the response to
the ganglion cell, depending on if that cell is an on-center or off-center cell (Nelson, 2001). In
mammalian retinal ganglion cells there is a “maintained impulse rate,” meaning the neurons are
firing without any stimulus present; this rate of impulse changes in the presence of light (Kuffler,
1953; Nelson, 2001; Shapely, 2000). We will use Signal Detection Theory (SDT) to view how
visual image signals from stimuli are discriminated from “noise” from the environment as well as
the “neural noise” caused by the maintained impulse rate.

Signal Detection
Signal Detection Theory is a statistical decision-making model for discriminating a signal
from interference (Swets, 2001; Tanner & Swets, 1954). In the process of discrimination, there
are two elements: signal and noise. For the application of SDT in visual perception, noise could
be ambient light, or it could be the maintained impulse rate firing in the ganglion cell. (Tanner &
Swets, 1954). The two factors vital in an accurate perception of a signal are “the strength of the
sensory evidence for that stimulus” and “the decision criterion” or threshold at which a non-
detection becomes detection. The goal, in signal design, is to maximize the correct detections and
minimize false-positive and false rejection errors (Green & Swets, 1966; Macmillan & Creelman,
2005; Tanner & Swets, 1954). In the following sections of this review, I describe two critical
factors in signal design that can help achieve optimal detection – contrast and magnitude.

Contrast
3

Contrast’s role in visual perception is aiding discrimination: when the contrast is high, it
is easier to distinguish one object from another. Arend (n.d.) describes our sensory processes as
“organized to respond strongly to temporal and spatial changes in the physical power of the
stimulus.” In other words, we are neurologically tuned to detect contrast. For this review, we will
be discussing two components of contrast: luminance and chromatic contrast. Luminance contrast
refers to the difference in amount of reflected light between an object and its background,
likewise chromatic contrast is the difference in hue or wavelength of that light (Arend, n.d.;
Geisler & Albrecht, 2000).
Luminance contrast is the most important aspect of contrast which makes it vital to our
ability to discriminate objects from their background (Hilz & Huppmann, 1974). Humans are
more sensitive to changes in luminance than by absolute luminance, this is exemplified by the
phenomenon of brightness constancy: the ability to perceive the same brightness of an object at
different levels of illumination (Cornsweet, 1970). Heinemann’s (1955) study of brightness
showed that increasing the perceived brightness of a background also increased the perceived
brightness of the foreground, demonstrating the influential power of luminance contrast
(Cornsweet, 1970).
Chromatic contrast is a less salient factor in visual perception, but affects acuity,
nonetheless. The effect of chromatic contrast occurs due to the different cone-types in the retina:
as different wavelengths of light enter the retina they activate the different cone-types and trigger
an inhibitory or excitatory response which creates the chromatic contrast effect (Gouras, 1984).
When brightness contrast is low, chromatic contrast will be relied heavily upon to do the work of
discrimination (Gouras, 1984).

Magnitude
Magnitude of a signal in visual processing is the size of the image being processed. It has
already been stated that we are tuned to detect spatial differences in the intensity of the stimulus,
in looking at magnitude we are interested in the number of changes across space i.e., an image’s
spatial frequency (Arend, n.d.; De Valois & De Valois, 1990; Geisler & Albrecht, 2000). Spatial
frequency influences our contrast sensitivity, limiting acuity at very low and high frequencies
(Campbell & Green, 1965; De Valois & De Valois, 1990; Geisler & Albrecht, 2000). At very
high frequencies, we are limited by the resolving power and optics of the human eye – diffraction
and sampling mean that some visual information may be lost (Campbell & Green, 1965; De
Valois & De Valois, 1990; Thibos, 2000). At very low spatial frequencies the “center-surround
relationship” of receptive fields that normally enhances contrast, does not have the information to
do so and the result is loss of acuity (Campbell & Green; Kuffler, 1953; Nelson, 2001). To
4

account for these limiting factors and to determine the contrast threshold of different spatial
frequencies, we use a Contrast Sensitivity Function (CSF) (De Valois & De Valois, 1990). In the
fovea and in brighter light conditions, the CSF determines that the optimal range of spatial
frequencies is between two and five cycles per degree (Campbell & Robson, 1968; National
Research Council (US) Committee on Vision, 1985). We can use this information to determine
the optimal magnitude of an image to maximize contrast sensitivity and therefore maximize
visual acuity.

Effect of Aging on Acuity

Aging has a degenerative effect on many key factors of visual perception that have been
discussed. The variable lens of the eye stiffens and yellows with age, decreasing the range of
focus and limiting the spectrum of wavelengths that enter the retina (Faubert, 2002; Thibos,
2000). There is also a decrease in retinal ganglion density that occurs with age, occurring mainly
in the macular region and beyond (Faubert, 2002). Lastly, the overall contrast sensitivity of older
humans is lower across high spatial frequencies (Faubert, 2002; National Research Council (US)
Committee on Vision, 1985).

Review of MBTA Fare Vending Machine Design

MBTA ticket fare vending machines are a key waypoint in accessing public
transportation in the Massachusetts Bay area. They are used as a resource: for information on
fares, bus routes, or subway lines as well as a transactional tool: to purchase or add to the balance
of transit tickets. If someone intends to use the MBTA services, they will likely have to interact
with one of these kiosks.
Figure 1 shows the entire interface of the Fare Vending Machine. In area B we see white
lettering on a uniform black background. This high contrast, negative polarity, achromatic
information is easily discriminable and clear, especially given that the magnitude of each word is
rather large. In contrast, the textual information of the fare rate schedule in area C is considerably
smaller. The contrast ratio of the text is also lower than area B as we largely see dark grey text on
a light grey background. For an aging observer, the contrast sensitivity for fine detail objects only
decreases and, thus, the fare schedule would be even more difficult to read (Faubert, 2002).
5

Figure 1 - MBTA Fare Vending Machine with areas A, the Visual Display
Terminal; B, cash and ticket dispensers/receivers; C, fare rate schedule

Area A is a VDT and is self-luminous meaning the display is its own light source. Figure
2 shows a close-up of the main menu screen on the VDT and Figure 3 shows a map of the
different sections of the main menu for ease of reference. To evaluate the contrast ratios of the
VDT menu sections, I sampled the colors using Adobe Photoshop and entered the hexadecimal
values into an online contrast checker (Contrast Checker, n.d.). These contrast ratio values will be
approximate due to the margin of error inherent in the process of testing color values of a digital
photograph of a VDT. For this evaluation the approximations will be sufficient.
 6

Figure 2 - Close-up of Visual Display Terminal Main Menu Figure 3 - Section Map of VDT Main Menu

Figure 4 describes the contrast ratios of the different sections against the background of
the VDT as well as the text within the section against the background of the section itself. The
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines advises that the contrast ratio of text to background should
be at least 3:1 and ideally should exceed 4.5:1 (Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG)
2.0, n.d.). As Figure 4 shows, that all sections but section 4 meet this criterion. One aspect of the
display contrast ratio that was not accounted for in the contrast checker evaluation was the
reflection of ambient light off the VDT screen (some of which can be seen in Figure 2.
Section Contrast Ratio of Section to Contrast Ratio of Section Text to
VDT Background Section Background
1&3 4.1:1 9.2:1
2 2.4:1 5:1
4 1:1 1.8:1
5 3:1 17:1
Figure 2 - Table of Contrast Ratios from VDT Main Menu

Design Recommendations
Overall, the MBTA Fare Vending Machine is designed well for the goal of
communicating the messages on the kiosk as well as the VDT. However, there are a few changes
I recommend to improve signal detection accuracy – first, I would increase the size of the fare
rate schedule. By increasing the size of the table, we would increase the spatial frequency of
image and therefore increase the contrast sensitivity and make the table more legible ( De Valois
& De Valois, 1990; Geisler & Albrecht, 2000). I would also make the text in the table darker,
increasing the contrast further. The VDT could use improvement as well, especially in section
four, where the contrast ratio failed to meet the WCAG guidelines for digital text. I would advise
changing the background of section 4 to a white or very desaturated yellow. This change would
7

bring the contrast ratio to an acceptable level. To combat the glare, I would recommend
increasing the overall brightness of the VDT.

Conclusion
Through millions of years of evolution our visual processing systems have
become neurologically tuned to detect differences in luminance and hue of the images that enter
our retina. Signal designers should aim to increase acuity by increasing contrast, especially where
spatial frequency is high. This will aid in maximizing correct signal detection and minimizing
false-positive and negative-rejection errors in signal detection. Designers of the MBTA kiosks
have done well in making the signals appropriately discernible, but with minor changes to
contrast and image size, they could certainly improve the interface.
8

References

Arend, L. (n.d.). Luminance and Chromaticity. Nasa.Gov. Retrieved October 8, 2021, from

https://colorusage.arc.nasa.gov/lum_and_chrom.php

Campbell, F. W., & Green, D. G. (1965). Optical and retinal factors affecting visual resolution. In
The Journal of Physiology (Vol. 181, Issue 3, pp. 576–593). Wiley.
https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1965.sp007784

Campbell, F. W., & Robson, J. G. (1968). Application of Fourier analysis to the visibility of
gratings. The Journal of Physiology, 197(3), 551–566.

Contrast Checker. (n.d.). Webaim.Org. Retrieved October 14, 2021, from

https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/

Cornsweet, T. N. (1970). Visual Perception. Academic Press.

Curcio, C. A., Sloan, K. R., Kalina, R. E., & Hendrickson, A. E. (1990). Human photoreceptor
topography. In The Journal of Comparative Neurology (Vol. 292, Issue 4, pp. 497–523).
Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.902920402

De Valois, R. L., & De Valois, K. K. (2000). Spatial Vision. Oxford University Press.

Faubert, J. (2002). Visual perception and aging. Canadian Journal of Experimental

Psychology/Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Expérimentale, 56(3), 164-176.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0087394

Geisler, Wilson S. and Albrecht, Duane G. (2000). Spatial Vision. In K. De Valois (Ed.), Seeing.
Handbook of perception and cognition. Elsevier Science & Technology.

Gouras, P. (1984). Color Vision. In N. N. Osborne & G. J. Chader (Eds.), Progress in Retinal

Research. Pergamon.

Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. John Wiley.

Hecht, S., Shlaer, S., & Pirenne, M. H. (1942). ENERGY, QUANTA, AND VISION. In Journal
of General Physiology (Vol. 25, Issue 6, pp. 819–840). Rockefeller University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1085/jgp.25.6.819
9

Heinemann, E. G. (1955). Simultaneous brightness induction as a function of inducing and test-

field luminances. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50(2), 89–96.

Hilz, R. L., Huppmann, G., & Cavonius, C. R. (1974). Influence of luminance contrast on hue
discrimination. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 64(6), 763–766.

Kuffler, S. W. (1953). DISCHARGE PATTERNS AND FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATION OF

MAMMALIAN RETINA. In Journal of Neurophysiology (Vol. 16, Issue 1, pp. 37–68).
American Physiological Society. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1953.16.1.37

Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection Theory: A User’s Guide (2nd ed.).

Psychology Press.

Marks, W. B., Dobelle, W. H., & MacNichol, E. F., Jr. (1964). Visual Pigments of Single Primate
Cones. In Science (Vol. 143, Issue 3611, pp. 1181–1183). American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.143.3611.1181

National Research Council (US) Committee on Vision. (1985). Contrast sensitivity function.
In Emergent Techniques for Assessment of Visual Performance. National Academies
Press.

Nelson, R. (2001). Visual Responses of Ganglion Cells. In Webvision: The Organization of the
Retina and Visual System. University of Utah Health Sciences Center.

Schacter, D., Gilbert, D., Nock, M., & Wegner, D. (2020). Psychology (5th ed.). Macmillan

Learning.

Shapely, R. (2000). Receptive Fields of Visual Neurons. In K. De Valois (Ed.), Seeing.

Handbook of perception and cognition. Elsevier Science & Technology.

Swets, J. A. (2001). Signal Detection Theory, History of. In International Encyclopedia of the
Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 14078–14082). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b0-
08-043076-7/00678-1

Tanner, W. P., & Swets, J. A. (1954). A decision-making theory of visual detection. In

Psychological Review (Vol. 61, Issue 6, pp. 401–409). American Psychological
Association (APA). https://doi.org/10.1037/h0058700
10

Thibos, L. N. (2000). Retinal Image Formation and Sampling. In K. De Valois (Ed.), Seeing.

Handbook of perception and cognition. Elsevier Science & Technology.

WALD, G. (1945). HUMAN VISION AND THE SPECTRUM. In Science (Vol. 101, Issue 2635,
pp. 653–658). American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.101.2635.653

Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. (n.d.). Www.W3.Org. Retrieved October 7,
2021, from https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/