Literature DB >> 18217840

Foveal contour interactions and crowding effects at the resolution limit of the visual system.

Marina V Danilova1, Valeria M Bondarko.   

Abstract

We describe several experiments on contour interactions and crowding effects at the resolution limit of the visual system. As test stimuli we used characters that are often employed in optometric practice for testing visual acuity: Landolt C's, Snellen E's, and rectangular gratings. We tested several hypotheses that have been put forward to explain contour interaction and crowding effects. In Experiment 1 and Experiment 2, Landolt C's were the test stimuli, and bars, or Landolt C's, or gratings served as distractors. In Experiment 1, we showed that neither scale invariance nor spatial frequency selectivity is a characteristic of foveal crowding effects. These results allowed us to conclude that mechanisms other than lateral masking contribute to observers' performance in 'crowded' tasks. R. F. Hess, S. C. Dakin, and N. Kappor (2000) suggested that the spatial frequency band most appropriate for target recognition is shifted by the surrounding bars to higher spatial frequencies that cannot be resolved by observers. Our Experiment 2 rejects this hypothesis as the experimental data do not follow theoretical predictions. In Experiment 3, we employed Snellen E's, both as test stimuli and as distractors. The masking functions were similar to those measured in Experiment 1 when the test Landolt C was surrounded by Landolt C's. In Experiment 4, we extended the range of test stimuli to rectangular gratings; same-frequency or high-frequency gratings were distractors. In this case, if the distracting gratings had random orientation from trial to trial, the critical spacing was twice larger than in the first three experiments. If the orientation of the distractors was fixed during the whole experiment, the critical spacing was similar to that measured in the first three experiments. We suggest that the visual system can use different mechanisms for the discrimination of different test stimuli in the presence of particular surround. Different receptive fields with different spatial characteristics can be employed. To explain why crowding effects at the resolution limit of the visual system are not scale invariant, we suggest that a range of stimuli, slightly varying in size, may all be processed by the same neural channel--the channel with the smallest receptive fields of the visual system.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18217840      PMCID: PMC2652120          DOI: 10.1167/7.2.25

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vis        ISSN: 1534-7362            Impact factor:   2.240


  33 in total

1.  Lateral masking: limitations of the feature interaction account.

Authors:  A Huckauf; D Heller; T A Nazir
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1999-01

2.  VISUAL RESOLUTION AND CONTOUR INTERACTION.

Authors:  M C FLOM; F W WEYMOUTH; D KAHNEMAN
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am       Date:  1963-09

3.  CONTOUR INTERACTION AND VISUAL RESOLUTION: CONTRALATERAL EFFECTS.

Authors:  M C FLOM; G G HEATH; E TAKAHASHI
Journal:  Science       Date:  1963-11-15       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  A study of separation difficulty. Its relationship to visual acuity in normal and amblyopic eyes.

Authors:  J A STUART; H M BURIAN
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  1962-03       Impact factor: 5.258

5.  Clinical testing of visual acuity.

Authors:  H EHLERS
Journal:  AMA Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1953-04

6.  "Crowding" in normal and amblyopic vision assessed with Gaussian and Gabor C's.

Authors:  Srividhya Hariharan; Dennis M Levi; Stanley A Klein
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  Crowding is unlike ordinary masking: distinguishing feature integration from detection.

Authors:  Denis G Pelli; Melanie Palomares; Najib J Majaj
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2004-12-30       Impact factor: 2.240

8.  Foveal contour interaction: detection and discrimination.

Authors:  Oliver Ehrt; Robert F Hess
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 2.129

9.  Three remarks on perceptual learning.

Authors:  J D Mollon; M V Danilova
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  1996

10.  What spatial frequency do we use to detect the orientation of a Landolt C?

Authors:  V M Bondarko; M V Danilova
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 1.886

View more
  17 in total

1.  The effect of decreased interletter spacing on orthographic processing.

Authors:  Veronica Montani; Andrea Facoetti; Marco Zorzi
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-06

2.  Contour interaction under photopic and scotopic conditions.

Authors:  Lenka Musilová; František Pluhácek; Stephanie M Marten-Ellis; Harold E Bedell; John Siderov
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  Comparison of LogMAR Eye charts with angular vision for visually impaired: the Berkeley rudimentary vision test vs LogMAR One target Landolt ring Eye chart.

Authors:  Marie Miwa; Masaki Iwanami; Mari S Oba; Nobuhisa Mizuki; Tomomi Nishida
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-09-22       Impact factor: 3.117

4.  A double dissociation of the acuity and crowding limits to letter identification, and the promise of improved visual screening.

Authors:  Shuang Song; Dennis M Levi; Denis G Pelli
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2014-05-05       Impact factor: 2.240

5.  Contour interaction in foveal vision: a response to Siderov, Waugh, and Bedell (2013).

Authors:  Daniel R Coates; Dennis M Levi
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2013-11-08       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Factors affecting crowded acuity: eccentricity and contrast.

Authors:  Daniel R Coates; Jeremy M Chin; Susana T L Chung
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 1.973

Review 7.  Crowding--an essential bottleneck for object recognition: a mini-review.

Authors:  Dennis M Levi
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2008-01-28       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 8.  A systematic review on 'Foveal Crowding' in visually impaired children and perceptual learning as a method to reduce Crowding.

Authors:  Bianca Huurneman; F Nienke Boonstra; Ralf Fa Cox; Antonius Hn Cillessen; Ger van Rens
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-07-23       Impact factor: 2.209

9.  A Comparison of Foveal and Peripheral Contour Interaction and Crowding.

Authors:  Stephanie M Marten-Ellis; Harold E Bedell
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 2.106

10.  Foveal Crowding Resolved.

Authors:  Daniel R Coates; Dennis M Levi; Phanith Touch; Ramkumar Sabesan
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-06-15       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.