BACKGROUND: Bottom-up and top-down processes are involved in visual analysis of scenes. Here we examined the influence of top-down visual demand on natural scene processing. METHODS: We measured accuracy and response time in adults performing two stimuli-equivalent tasks. Unfiltered, low or high spatial frequency (SF) natural scenes were presented in central, left, or right visual fields (CVF, LVF, RVF). The tasks differed only by the instructed visual demand. In the detection task, participants had to decide whether a scene was present or not. In the categorization task, they had to decide whether the scene was a city or a forest. RESULTS: Higher accuracy was seen for the LVF in the detection task, but for categorization, greater accuracy was seen for the RVF. The interaction between Task and SF revealed coarse-to-fine processing in the categorization task for both accuracy and reaction time, which nearly disappeared in the detection task. Considering the interaction of Task, VF and SF, a left-hemisphere specialisation (i.e., RVF advantage) was observed for the categorisation of HSF scenes for accuracy alone, whereas a LVF advantage was seen for all SFs in the detection task for both accuracy and reaction time. CONCLUSION: Our results revealed that the nature of top-down visual demand is essential to understanding how visual analysis is achieved in each hemisphere. Moreover, this study examining the effects of visual demand, visual field presentation, and SF content of stimuli through the use of ecological stimuli provides a tool to enrich the clinical examination of visual and neurovisual patients.
BACKGROUND: Bottom-up and top-down processes are involved in visual analysis of scenes. Here we examined the influence of top-down visual demand on natural scene processing. METHODS: We measured accuracy and response time in adults performing two stimuli-equivalent tasks. Unfiltered, low or high spatial frequency (SF) natural scenes were presented in central, left, or right visual fields (CVF, LVF, RVF). The tasks differed only by the instructed visual demand. In the detection task, participants had to decide whether a scene was present or not. In the categorization task, they had to decide whether the scene was a city or a forest. RESULTS: Higher accuracy was seen for the LVF in the detection task, but for categorization, greater accuracy was seen for the RVF. The interaction between Task and SF revealed coarse-to-fine processing in the categorization task for both accuracy and reaction time, which nearly disappeared in the detection task. Considering the interaction of Task, VF and SF, a left-hemisphere specialisation (i.e., RVF advantage) was observed for the categorisation of HSF scenes for accuracy alone, whereas a LVF advantage was seen for all SFs in the detection task for both accuracy and reaction time. CONCLUSION: Our results revealed that the nature of top-down visual demand is essential to understanding how visual analysis is achieved in each hemisphere. Moreover, this study examining the effects of visual demand, visual field presentation, and SF content of stimuli through the use of ecological stimuli provides a tool to enrich the clinical examination of visual and neurovisualpatients.
Authors: Paul H Artes; Donna M Hutchison; Marcelo T Nicolela; Raymond P LeBlanc; Balwantray C Chauhan Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 4.799