Asymmetry between the upper and lower visual fields: An event-related potential study

Qu, Zhe; Song, Yan; Ding, Yulong

doi:10.1007/s11434-006-0536-3

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(37 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These differences suggest that there might be a LVF advantage in automatic processing of orientation contrast. Asymmetries between the UVFs and LVFs were reported in previous studies in many perceptual tasks (He et al, 1996 ; Rubin et al, 1996 ; Qu et al, 2006 ; Pourtois et al, 2008 ; Rauss et al, 2009 ; Bombeke et al, 2016 ). Previous studies also found that contrast sensitivity (Skrandies, 1985 ) and spatial resolution (Skrandies, 1987 ) in the LVF is higher than in the UVF.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Automatic Detection of Orientation Contrast Occurs at Early but Not Earliest Stages of Visual Cortical Processing in Humans

Zhen

Ding

et al. 2018

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Orientation contrast is formed when some elements orient differently from their surroundings. Although orientation contrast can be processed in the absence of top-down attention, the underlying neural mechanism for this automatic processing in humans is controversial. In particular, whether automatic detection of orientation contrast occurs at the initial feedforward stage in the primary visual cortex (i.e., V1) remains unclear. Here, we used event-related potentials (ERPs) to examine the automatic processing of orientation contrast in humans. In three experiments, participants completed a task at fixation while orientation contrasts were presented in the periphery, either in the upper visual field (UVF) or the lower visual field (LVF). All experiments showed significant positive potentials evoked by orientation contrasts over occipital areas within 100 ms after stimulus onset. These contrast effects occurred 10–20 ms later than the C1 components evoked by identically located abrupt onset stimuli which indexes the initial feedforward activity in V1. Compared with those in the UVF, orientation contrasts in the LVF evoked earlier and stronger activities, probably reflecting a LVF advantage in processing of orientation contrast. Even when orientation contrasts were rendered almost invisible by backward masking (in Experiment 2), the early contrast effect in the LVF was not disrupted. These findings imply that automatic processing of orientation contrast could occur at early visual cortical processing stages, but was slightly later than the initial feedforward processing in human V1; such automatic processing may involve either recurrent processing in V1 or feedforward processing in early extrastriate visual cortex.Highlights We examined the earliest automatic processing of orientation contrast in humans with ERPs.Significant orientation contrast effect started within 100 ms in early visual areas.The earliest orientation contrast effect occurred later than the C1 evoked by abrupt onset stimuli.The earliest orientation contrast effect was independent of top-down attention and awareness.Automatic detection of orientation contrast arises slightly after the initial feedforward processing in V1.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Automatic Detection of Orientation Contrast Occurs at Early but Not Earliest Stages of Visual Cortical Processing in Humans

Zhen

Ding

et al. 2018

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These different patterns of attentional modulation of MIB between UVF and LVF can be interpreted in the light of some ERP findings [29,30] . For example, Ao and his colleagues [29] indicated that attention-induced ERPs are greater in UVF than in LVF, and they thought that this means that less attention resources are needed in LVF than in UVF when completing a same task.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Attentional modulation of motion-induced blindness

Geng

Song

et al. 2007

Chin. Sci. Bull.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When a global moving pattern is superimposed on high-contrast stationary or slowly moving stimuli, the stimuli can be perceived as disappearing and reappearing alternately for periods of several seconds. This visual illusory phenomenon was named "motion-induced blindness" (MIB) in recent literature. So far there is no consensus on the mechanism of MIB, especially on the role of attention in this phenomenon. To examine the effect of spatial attention on MIB, the present study manipulated the participants' spatial attention by asking them to respond to two targets simultaneously presented in bilateral visual fields (the divided-attention condition) or only respond to one of them (the fo- cused-attention condition). A central arrow was presented as an endogenous cue to index the target visual field in the focused-attention condition, while a point was presented instead in the divided-attention condition. The results show that the percentage of accumulated invisibility period was larger for the targets in the focused-attention condition than for those in the divided-attention condition. This effect of attention is significant in upper visual field (UVF) and left lower visual field (left LVF); that is, this effect shows a hemispheric asymmetry in LVF but not in UVF. Furthermore, the percentage of accumulated invisibility period was larger for targets in left LVF than for those in right LVF in the focused-attention condition, but no hemispheric asymmetry was found in the divided-attention condition. In addition, the increased percentage of accumulated invisibility period in the focused-attention condition originated merely in the enhancement of the mean phase duration of disappearance in LVF, while the disappearance occurred more frequently and lasted longer for each occurrence, which led to an increase in the total invisibility period, in the focused-than divided-attention condition in UVF. These results suggest that the modulation of spatial attention on MIB has different patterns in UVF and LVF. motion-induced blindness, spatial attention, perceptual rivalry, hemispheric asymmetry, visual field

show abstract

“…Nicholls concluded that the right visual field dominant was related to the left cortex. Wada further confirmed that the right visual field unilateral dominance was declined when the subjects' major hands were left hands [9]. But in this study, no significant differences were found between reaction times to the upper and lower visual fields.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 49%

Technology Study on the Perception of Stereopsis in Fovea Field

Han

et al. 2014

AMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Random-dot stereograms were used as stimuli to investigate the perception of stereopsis in fovea field. The response of every subject was recorded in different positions in the fovea field: upper, lower, left, right field and with different eccentricities of 1.39º, 1.93º, 2.48º, 3.02º, 3.57º. The results showed that reaction times increased with increasing eccentricities wherever the disparity zone was presented relative to the fixation point. No significant differences were found between reaction times to the upper and lower visual fields. And there were no significant differences between left and right visual field. But there were marked superiorities for reaction times between upper and right field at all eccentricities.

show abstract

Asymmetry between the upper and lower visual fields: An event-related potential study

Cited by 8 publications

References 25 publications

Automatic Detection of Orientation Contrast Occurs at Early but Not Earliest Stages of Visual Cortical Processing in Humans

Automatic Detection of Orientation Contrast Occurs at Early but Not Earliest Stages of Visual Cortical Processing in Humans

Attentional modulation of motion-induced blindness

Technology Study on the Perception of Stereopsis in Fovea Field

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About