Literature DB >> 22353778

Exploring the edges of visual space: the influence of visual boundaries on peripheral localization.

Francesca C Fortenbaugh1, Shradha Sanghvi, Michael A Silver, Lynn C Robertson.   

Abstract

Previous studies of localization of stationary targets in the peripheral visual field have found either underestimations (foveal biases) or overestimations (peripheral biases) of target eccentricity. In the present study, we help resolve this inconsistency by demonstrating the influence of visual boundaries on the type of localization bias. Using a Goldmann perimeter (an illuminated half-dome), we presented targets at different eccentricities across the visual field and asked participants to judge the target locations. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants reported target locations relative to their perceived visual field extent using either a manual or verbal response, with both response types producing a peripheral bias. This peripheral localization bias was a non-linear scaling of perceived location when the visual field was not bounded by external borders induced by facial features (i.e., the nose and brow), but location scaling was linear when visual boundaries were present. Experiment 3 added an external border (an aperture edge placed in the Goldmann perimeter) that resulted in a foveal bias and linear scaling. Our results show that boundaries that define a spatial region within the visual field determine both the direction of bias in localization errors for stationary objects and the scaling function of perceived location across visual space.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22353778      PMCID: PMC3373428          DOI: 10.1167/12.2.19

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


  46 in total

1.  Relative mislocalization of briefly presented stimuli in the retinal periphery.

Authors:  J Müsseler; A H van der Heijden; S H Mahmud; H Deubel; S Ertsey
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1999-11

2.  Spatial memory averaging, the landmark attraction effect, and representational gravity.

Authors:  T L Hubbard; S E Ruppel
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2000

3.  Distance determined by the angular declination below the horizon.

Authors:  T L Ooi; B Wu; Z J He
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2001-11-08       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Memory for the position of stationary objects: disentangling foveal bias and memory averaging.

Authors:  Dirk Kerzel
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  The onset repulsion effect.

Authors:  Ian M Thornton
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  2002

6.  Spatial distortions and processing latencies in the onset repulsion and Fröhlich effects.

Authors:  Dirk Kerzel; Karl R Gegenfurtner
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  Cognitive allocentric representations of visual space shape pointing errors.

Authors:  M Carrozzo; F Stratta; J McIntyre; F Lacquaniti
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2002-09-26       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Extrinsic cues suppress the encoding of intrinsic cues.

Authors:  Bhavin R Sheth; Shinsuke Shimojo
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 3.225

9.  Judging egocentric distance on the ground: occlusion and surface integration.

Authors:  Zijiang J He; Bing Wu; Teng Leng Ooi; Gary Yarbrough; Jun Wu
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 1.490

10.  When here becomes there: attentional distribution modulates foveal bias in peripheral localization.

Authors:  Francesca C Fortenbaugh; Lynn C Robertson
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 2.199

View more
  11 in total

1.  The Effects of Age and Set Size on the Fast Extraction of Egocentric Distance.

Authors:  Daniel A Gajewski; Courtney P Wallin; John W Philbeck
Journal:  Vis cogn       Date:  2016-01-22

2.  Spatial distortions in localization and midline estimation in hemianopia and normal vision.

Authors:  Francesca C Fortenbaugh; Thomas M VanVleet; Michael A Silver; Lynn C Robertson
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2015-04-11       Impact factor: 1.886

3.  Perception of differences in naturalistic dynamic scenes, and a V1-based model.

Authors:  Michelle P S To; Iain D Gilchrist; David J Tolhurst
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2015-01-16       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Individual differences in visual field shape modulate the effects of attention on the lower visual field advantage in crowding.

Authors:  Francesca C Fortenbaugh; Michael A Silver; Lynn C Robertson
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2015-02-12       Impact factor: 2.240

5.  Gaze direction and the extraction of egocentric distance.

Authors:  Daniel A Gajewski; Courtney P Wallin; John W Philbeck
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  Large perceptual distortions of locomotor action space occur in ground-based coordinates: Angular expansion and the large-scale horizontal-vertical illusion.

Authors:  Brennan J Klein; Zhi Li; Frank H Durgin
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2015-11-23       Impact factor: 3.332

7.  Fine-grained, local maps and coarse, global representations support human spatial working memory.

Authors:  Mohammad Zia Ul Haq Katshu; Giovanni d'Avossa
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-09-26       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Perceived azimuth direction is exaggerated: Converging evidence from explicit and implicit measures.

Authors:  Zhi Li; Frank H Durgin
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 2.240

9.  Biases in Visual, Auditory, and Audiovisual Perception of Space.

Authors:  Brian Odegaard; David R Wozny; Ladan Shams
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2015-12-08       Impact factor: 4.475

10.  Nonretinocentric localization of successively presented flashes during smooth pursuit eye movements.

Authors:  Stefan Dowiasch; Sonia Meyer-Stender; Steffen Klingenhoefer; Frank Bremmer
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2020-04-09       Impact factor: 2.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.