Numerosity estimation benefits from transsaccadic information integration

Hübner, Carolin; Schütz, Alexander C.

doi:10.1167/17.13.12

Cited by 27 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 54 publications

(74 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Lower order visual processes are typically more spatially selective, due to overall smaller receptive field sizes in earlier parts of the visual processing hierarchy (Smith et al, 2001). The lack of spatial selectivity in our study, and the requirement of congruence of the signal across saccades, can be seen as (moderate) support that transsaccadic feature integration is a higher order process (as in Hübner & Schütz, 2017). Furthermore, several studies report that spatial judgement tasks may rely on saccade execution (Jayet Bray, Bansal, & Joiner, 2015;Collins et al, 2009).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

“…Although this seems like an elegant solution of how the visual system may establish perceptual continuity across saccades, little is known about how and whether transsaccadic feature integration is affected by the parameters of a saccade. As of yet, no consensus exists whether transsaccadic feature integration is a higherorder process (Hübner & Schütz, 2017) or a lower order visual process (Paeye, Collins, & Cavanagh, 2017). Therefore, we chose to approach the topic of transsaccadic feature integration in a different manner, to constrain the possible underlying processes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Feature integration is unaffected by saccade landing point, even when saccades land outside of the range of regular oculomotor variance

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The experience of our visual surroundings appears continuous, contradicting the erratic nature of visual processing due to saccades. A possible way the visual system can construct a continuous experience is by integrating presaccadic and postsaccadic visual input. However, saccades rarely land exactly at the intended location. Feature integration would therefore need to be robust against variations in saccade execution to facilitate visual continuity. In the current study, observers reported a feature (color) of the saccade target, which occasionally changed slightly during the saccade. In transsaccadic change-trials, observers reported a mixture of the pre- and postsaccadic color, indicating transsaccadic feature integration. Saccade landing distance was not a significant predictor of the reported color. Next, to investigate the influence of more extreme deviations of saccade landing point on color reports, we used a global effect paradigm in a second experiment. In global effect trials, a distractor appeared together with the saccade target, causing most saccades to land in between the saccade target and the distractor. Strikingly, even when saccades land further away (up to 4°) from the saccade target than one would expect under single target conditions, there was no effect of saccade landing point on the reported color. We reason that saccade landing point does not affect feature integration, due to dissociation between the intended saccade target and the actual saccade landing point. Transsaccadic feature integration seems to be a mechanism that is dependent on visual spatial attention, and, as a result, is robust against variance in saccade landing point.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feature integration is unaffected by saccade landing point, even when saccades land outside of the range of regular oculomotor variance

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cicchini et al (2013) also saw no interaction between stimuli with large orientation differences, suggesting that this causal link may also be broken when there is a large disparity in object features. Interestingly, as we mentioned previously, near-optimal integration was still found despite transsaccadic changes to the composition of numerosity dot clouds (Hübner & Schütz, 2017): it seems that, in this case, the stimulus changes were not enough to break the causal link between the stimuli as a whole. This may suggest that the rules governing integration versus segregation across saccades are flexible and task-dependent.…”

Section: Integration's Limits: Causal Inference and Perceptual Stabilitymentioning

confidence: 55%

A review of interactions between peripheral and foveal vision

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual processing varies dramatically across the visual field. These differences start in the retina and continue all the way to the visual cortex. Despite these differences in processing, the perceptual experience of humans is remarkably stable and continuous across the visual field. Research in the last decade has shown that processing in peripheral and foveal vision is not independent, but is more directly connected than previously thought. We address three core questions on how peripheral and foveal vision interact, and review recent findings on potentially related phenomena that could provide answers to these questions. First, how is the processing of peripheral and foveal signals related during fixation? Peripheral signals seem to be processed in foveal retinotopic areas to facilitate peripheral object recognition, and foveal information seems to be extrapolated toward the periphery to generate a homogeneous representation of the environment. Second, how are peripheral and foveal signals re-calibrated? Transsaccadic changes in object features lead to a reduction in the discrepancy between peripheral and foveal appearance. Third, how is peripheral and foveal information stitched together across saccades? Peripheral and foveal signals are integrated across saccadic eye movements to average percepts and to reduce uncertainty. Together, these findings illustrate that peripheral and foveal processing are closely connected, mastering the compromise between a large peripheral visual field and high resolution at the fovea. Brief overview of differences between peripheral and foveal vision Although the human eye is often compared to a photographic camera, processing across the visual field is not homogeneous like in a camera film or a digital sensor. First, there are gaps in sensory information due to several anatomical properties of the eye: (a) there are no photoreceptors in the optic disc, where the axons of the retinal ganglion cells exit the eyeball: this leads to a blind spot (Mariotte, 1740, cited after Ferree & Rand, 1912; Grzybowski & Aydin, 2007). (b) The center of the retina contains only cone, but no rod photoreceptors (Schultze, 1866; Oesterberg, 1935; Curcio, Sloan, Kalina, & Hendrickson, 1990), leading to a central scotoma under dark illumination conditions. (c) Because photoreceptors are located on the back side of the retina, away from the light, blood vessels cast shadows on them (Purkinje, 1819; von Helmholtz, 1867; Evans, 1927; Adams & Horton, 2002). The second striking difference to a photographic camera is that the processing of visual signals varies quite dramatically across the visual field. Here, an important distinction arises between the center of the visual field, called the fovea, and the rest, called the periphery. 1 We only briefly highlight some of the key differences in processing and perception between the fovea and the periphery because these have been reviewed in detail elsewhere

show abstract

“…In condition V-PV (vernier-pro-vernier), the central line and one of the flanking lines are offset in the same direction and add up. its reliability and integrated in a statistically optimal way (Ganmor, Landy, & Simoncelli, 2015;Hübner & Schütz, 2017;Wijdenes, Marshall, & Bays, 2015;Wolf & Schütz, 2015). It has been proposed that information transfer across saccades occurs to establish object correspondence and maintain perceptual stability (Deubel, Schneider, & Bridgeman, 1996;Poth, Herwig, & Schneider, 2015;Tas, Moore, & Hollingworth, 2012;Tas, Moore, & Hollingworth, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Object identity determines trans-saccadic integration

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans make two to four rapid eye movements (saccades) per second, which, surprisingly, does not lead to abrupt changes in vision. To the contrary, we perceive a stable world. Hence, an important question is how information is integrated across saccades. To investigate this question, we used the sequential metacontrast paradigm (SQM), where two expanding streams of lines are presented. When one line is spatially offset, the other lines are perceived as being offset, too. When more lines are offset, all offsets integrate mandatorily; that is, observers cannot report the individual offsets but perceive one integrated offset. Here, we asked observers to make a saccade during the SQM. Even though the saccades caused a highly disrupted motion trajectory on the retina, offsets presented before and after the saccade integrated mandatorily. When observers made no saccade and the streams were displaced on the screen so that a similarly disrupted retinal image occurred as in the previous condition, no integration occurred. We suggest that trans-saccadic integration and perception are determined by object identity in spatiotopic coordinates and not by the retinal image.

show abstract

Numerosity estimation benefits from transsaccadic information integration

Cited by 27 publications

References 54 publications

Feature integration is unaffected by saccade landing point, even when saccades land outside of the range of regular oculomotor variance

Feature integration is unaffected by saccade landing point, even when saccades land outside of the range of regular oculomotor variance

A review of interactions between peripheral and foveal vision

Object identity determines trans-saccadic integration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About