| Literature DB >> 35857298 |
Minghao Luo1,2,3,4, Huihui Zhang1,2,3,5, Huan Luo1,2,3,6.
Abstract
Visual systems exploit temporal continuity principles to achieve stable spatial perception, manifested as the serial dependence and central tendency effects. These effects are posited to reflect a smoothing process whereby past and present information integrates over time to decrease noise and stabilize perception. Meanwhile, the basic spatial coordinate-Cartesian versus polar-that scaffolds the integration process in two-dimensional continuous space remains unknown. The spatial coordinates are largely related to the allocentric and egocentric reference frames and presumably correspond with early and late processing stages in spatial perception. Here, four experiments consistently demonstrate that Cartesian outperforms polar coordinates in characterizing the serial bias-serial dependence and central tendency effect-in two-dimensional continuous spatial perception. The superiority of Cartesian coordinates is robust, independent of task environment (online and offline task), experimental length (short and long blocks), spatial context (shape of visual mask), and response modality (keyboard and mouse). Taken together, the visual system relies on the Cartesian coordinates for spatiotemporal integration to facilitate stable representation of external information, supporting the involvement of allocentric reference frame and top-down modulation in spatial perception over long time intervals.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35857298 PMCID: PMC9315070 DOI: 10.1167/jov.22.8.13
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Vis ISSN: 1534-7362 Impact factor: 2.004
Figure 1.Experiment 1 paradigm, quantifying spatial bias by Cartesian and Polar coordinates, and model comparisons. (A) Participants performed a location and orientation reproduction dual-task on a Gabor stimulus occurring at a random location in a 2D continuous space, followed by a square mask. During the reproduction stage, subjects adjusted the position and the orientation of a white bar using keyboards to match the location and orientation of the Gabor stimulus during the perception stage. (B) Pooled results across subjects (N = 23) for orientation serial dependence. The x axis represents the difference between the current Gabor orientation and that in the preceding trial. The y axis represents the difference between the reported orientation and the true orientation in the current trial. The black curve denotes the fitted DoG curve across subjects. The gray points denote all the trials from one representative subject. (C–E) Serial dependence and central tendency effect on spatial perception in Cartesian coordinates. (C) Illustration of quantifying spatial bias at x and y axis. (D) Pooled serial dependence effect across subjects on spatial location at the x axis (left) and the y axis (right). The straight lines denote the best fitting linear trend. The gray dots represent all the trials from one representative subject in (B). (E) The same as (D), but for central tendency effect. (F–H) Serial dependence and central tendency effect on spatial perception in Polar coordinates. (F) Illustration of quantifying spatial bias at the ρ axis and the φ axis. (G–H) The same as (DE) but in the polar coordinates. Note that φ is not applicable to quantify central tendency effect. (I) Model comparison (Constant, SD, linear CT, complex CT, SD + complex CT) for four parameters (Cartesian coordinates: x and y; polar coordinates: ρ and φ). ※, best model with the lowest AICc; ⊘, nonapplicable. The ΔAICc is calculated by subtracting the lowest AICc. Dashed line denotes threshold (log-transition of ΔAICc = 10) (J) Model comparison between Cartesian and polar coordinates. The dashed line denotes threshold (log-transition of ΔAICc = 10).
Figure 2.Robust function of Cartesian coordinates in serial bias in 2D continuous spatial perception (experiments 2–4) (A) Experiment 2 (online experiment, short block, keyboard response). (Left) Participants maintained their fixation on the central point and were presented with a red dot at random locations in a 2D continuous space, followed by a square mask. During the reproduction stage, subjects adjusted the position of the red dot with keyboards to match the red dot position during the perception stage. (Middle and right) model comparison results for experiment 2, with the same setting as Figure 1IJ. (B) Experiment 3 (online experiment, short block, keyboard response). Left: Subjects performed the same task as experiment 2 but with a round-shape mask. (Middle and right) Model comparison results for experiment 3, with the same setting as Figure 1IJ. (C) Experiment 4 (offline experiment, long blocks, mouse response). (Left) Subjects performed the same task as experiment 2, but by using a mouse. (Middle and right) Model comparison results for experiment 4, with the same setting as Figure 1IJ.
Model comparison results of experiments 2–4 (ΔAICc compared with the best model on each axis).
| Constant | SD | Linear CT | Complex CT | SD + Complex CT | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experiment 2 | ||||||
| Cartesian | x | 1940.618 | 1561.0 | 1359.4 | 14.9 | 0 |
| y | 1247.2 | 621.5 | 431.8 | 50.4 | 0 | |
| Polar | ρ | 1078.1 | 413.0 | 154.9 | 40.0 | 0 |
| φ | 36.6 | 0 | ||||
| Experiment 3 | ||||||
| Cartesian | x | 1703.9 | 1239.0 | 1183.6 | 46.9 | 0 |
| y | 1363.9 | 636.6 | 355.5 | 42.8 | 0 | |
| Polar | ρ | 786.3 | 246.1 | 99.3 | 45.9 | 0 |
| φ | 43.7 | 0 | ||||
| Experiment 4 | ||||||
| Cartesian | x | 6070.0 | 3230.2 | 1525.7 | 95.6 | 0 |
| y | 8556.2 | 3934.0 | 568.5 | 116.9 | 0 | |
| Polar | ρ | 3077.6 | 1603.1 | 56.9 | 0 | 1.8 |
| φ | 49.5 | 0 | ||||