Literature DB >> 25248620

A decisional account of subjective inflation of visual perception at the periphery.

Guillermo Solovey1, Guy Gerard Graney, Hakwan Lau.   

Abstract

Human peripheral vision appears vivid compared to foveal vision; the subjectively perceived level of detail does not seem to drop abruptly with eccentricity. This compelling impression contrasts with the fact that spatial resolution is substantially lower at the periphery. A similar phenomenon occurs in visual attention, in which subjects usually overestimate their perceptual capacity in the unattended periphery. We have previously shown that at identical eccentricity, low spatial attention is associated with liberal detection biases, which we argue may reflect inflated subjective perceptual qualities. Our computational model suggests that this subjective inflation occurs because under the lack of attention, the trial-by-trial variability of the internal neural response is increased, resulting in more frequent surpassing of a detection criterion. In the current work, we hypothesized that the same mechanism may be at work in peripheral vision. We investigated this possibility in psychophysical experiments in which participants performed a simultaneous detection task at the center and at the periphery. Confirming our hypothesis, we found that participants adopted a conservative criterion at the center and liberal criterion at the periphery. Furthermore, an extension of our model predicts that detection bias will be similar at the center and at the periphery if the periphery stimuli are magnified. A second experiment successfully confirmed this prediction. These results suggest that, although other factors contribute to subjective inflation of visual perception in the periphery, such as top-down filling-in of information, the decision mechanism may be relevant too.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25248620     DOI: 10.3758/s13414-014-0769-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 1943-3921            Impact factor:   2.199


  13 in total

Review 1.  Subjective inflation: phenomenology's get-rich-quick scheme.

Authors:  J D Knotts; Brian Odegaard; Hakwan Lau; David Rosenthal
Journal:  Curr Opin Psychol       Date:  2018-11-14

2.  Inflation versus filling-in: why we feel we see more than we actually do in peripheral vision.

Authors:  Brian Odegaard; Min Yu Chang; Hakwan Lau; Sing-Hang Cheung
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2018-09-19       Impact factor: 6.237

3.  Suboptimality in Perceptual Decision Making.

Authors:  Dobromir Rahnev; Rachel N Denison
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2018-02-27       Impact factor: 12.579

4.  Humans incorporate attention-dependent uncertainty into perceptual decisions and confidence.

Authors:  Rachel N Denison; William T Adler; Marisa Carrasco; Wei Ji Ma
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-10-08       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Who's afraid of response bias?

Authors:  Megan A K Peters; Tony Ro; Hakwan Lau
Journal:  Neurosci Conscious       Date:  2016-02-27

6.  Self-evaluation of decision-making: A general Bayesian framework for metacognitive computation.

Authors:  Stephen M Fleming; Nathaniel D Daw
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 8.934

7.  Is fear perception special? Evidence at the level of decision-making and subjective confidence.

Authors:  Ai Koizumi; Dean Mobbs; Hakwan Lau
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2016-07-12       Impact factor: 3.436

8.  Comparing Bayesian and non-Bayesian accounts of human confidence reports.

Authors:  William T Adler; Wei Ji Ma
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2018-11-13       Impact factor: 4.475

9.  Deflating inflation: the connection (or lack thereof) between decisional and metacognitive processes and visual phenomenology.

Authors:  Greyson Abid
Journal:  Neurosci Conscious       Date:  2019-11-15

10.  Eccentricity effects in vision and attention.

Authors:  Camilla Funch Staugaard; Anders Petersen; Signe Vangkilde
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2016-06-21       Impact factor: 3.139

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.