{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01565377532228361, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003683241252302026, 'mean_word_length': 5.106741573033708, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On the decline of 1st and 2nd order sensitivity with eccentricity.

We studied the relationship between the decline in sensitivity that occurs with eccentricity for stimuli of different spatial scale defined by either luminance (LM) or contrast (CM) modulation. We show that the detectability of CM stimuli declines with eccentricity in a spatial frequency-dependent manner, and that the rate of sensitivity decline for CM stimuli is roughly that expected from their 1st order carriers, except, possibly, at finer scales. Using an equivalent noise paradigm, we investigated the possible reasons for why the foveal sensitivity for detecting LM and CM stimuli differs as well as the reason why the detectability of 1st order stimuli declines with eccentricity. We show the former can be modeled by an increase in internal noise whereas the latter involves both an increase in internal noise and a loss of efficiency. To encompass both the threshold and suprathreshold transfer properties of peripheral vision, we propose a model in terms of the contrast gain of the underlying mechanisms.