Human vision is characterized by a consistent pattern of saccadic eye movements. With each saccade, internal object representations change their retinal position and spatial resolution. This raises the question as to how peripheral perception is affected by imminent saccadic eye movements. Here, we suggest that saccades are accompanied by a prediction of their perceptual consequences (i.e., the foveation of the target object). Accordingly, peripheral perception should be biased toward previously associated foveal input. In this study, we first exposed participants to an altered visual stimulation where one object systematically changed its shape during saccades. Subsequently, participants had to judge the shape of briefly presented peripheral saccade targets. The results showed that targets were perceived as less curved for objects that previously changed from more circular in the periphery to more triangular in the fovea. Similarly, shapes were perceived as more curved for objects that previously changed from triangular to circular. Thus, peripheral perception seems to depend not solely on the current input but also on memorized experiences, enabling predictions about the perceptual consequences of saccadic eye movements.

With each saccadic eye movement, internal object representations change their retinal position and spatial resolution. Recently, we suggested that the visual system deals with these saccade-induced changes by predicting visual features across saccades based on transsaccadic associations of peripheral and foveal input (Herwig & Schneider, 2014). Here we tested the specificity of feature prediction by asking (a) whether it is spatially restricted to the previous learning location or the saccade target location, and (b) whether it is based on retinotopic (eye-centered) or spatiotopic (worldcentered) coordinates. In a preceding acquisition phase, objects systematically changed their spatial frequency during saccades. In the following test phases of two experiments, participants had to judge the frequency of briefly presented peripheral objects. These objects were presented either at the previous learning location or at new locations and were either the target of a saccadic eye movement or not (Experiment 1). Moreover, objects were presented either in the same or different retinotopic and spatiotopic coordinates (Experiment 2). Spatial frequency perception was biased toward previously associated foveal input indicating transsaccadic learning and feature prediction. Importantly, while this pattern was not bound to the saccade target location, it was seen only at the previous learning location in retinotopic coordinates, suggesting that feature prediction probably affects low-or mid-level perception.

Attended stimuli are perceived as occurring earlier than unattended stimuli. This phenomenon of prior entry is usually identified by a shift in the point of subjective simultaneity (PSS) in temporal order judgements (TOJs). According to its traditional psychophysical interpretation, the PSS coincides with the perception of simultaneity. This assumption is, however, questionable. Technically, the PSS represents the temporal interval between two stimuli at which the two alternative TOJs are equally likely. Thus it also seems possible that observers perceive not simultaneity, but uncertainty of temporal order. This possibility is supported by prior-entry studies, which find that perception of simultaneity is not very likely at the PSS. The present study tested the percept at the PSS in prior entry, using peripheral cues to orient attention. We found that manipulating attention caused varying temporal perceptions around the PSS. On some occasions observers perceived the two stimuli as simultaneous, but on others they were simply uncertain about the order in which they had been presented. This finding contradicts the implicit assumption of most models of temporal order perception, that perception of simultaneity inevitably results if temporal order cannot be discriminated.

Although saccadic eye movements occur frequently-about three or four times a second-humans are astonishingly blind to transsaccadic changes. Locational displacements of the saccade target of up to 2 deg of visual angle, and even large changes of a visual scene, can go unnoticed. For a long time, this insensitivity was ascribed to deficits in transsaccadic memory: Only a coarse, (spatially) imprecise representation would be retained across a saccade. This assumption was contradicted by Deubel's and Schneider's (Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17:259-260, 1994) striking finding that locational discrimination performance across a saccade is greatly improved by inserting a short postsaccadic blank. Surprisingly, the question of whether blanking effects occur also for other forms of transsaccadic changes (i.e., surface-feature changes) has been widely ignored. We tested this question by means of a transsaccadic change in spatial frequency. Postsaccadic blanking facilitated spatial-frequency discrimination, but to a smaller amount than the usual blanking effects obtained with locational displacements. This finding bears important implications for models of visual stability and transsaccadic memory.

Why are nearly simultaneous stimuli frequently perceived in reversed order? The origin of errors in temporal judgments is a question older than experimental psychology itself. One of the earliest suspects is attention. According to the concept of prior entry, attention accelerates attended stimuli; thus they have “prior entry” to perceptive processing stages, including consciousness. Although latency advantages for attended stimuli have been revealed in psychophysical studies many times, these measures (e.g. temporal order judgments, simultaneity judgments) cannot test the prior-entry hypothesis completely. Since they assess latency differences between an attended and an unattended stimulus, they cannot distinguish between faster processing of attended stimuli and slower processing of unattended stimuli. Therefore, we present a novel paradigm providing separate estimates for processing advantages respectively disadvantages of attended and unattended stimuli. We found that deceleration of unattended stimuli contributes more strongly to the prior-entry illusion than acceleration of attended stimuli. Thus, in the temporal domain, attention fulfills its selective function primarily by deceleration of unattended stimuli. That means it is actually posterior entry, not prior entry which accounts for the largest part of the effect.