Object discrepancy modulates feature prediction across eye movements

Abstract

Object perception across saccadic eye movements is assumed to result from integrating two information sources: incoming peripheral object information and information from a foveal prediction (Herwig and Schneider, J Exp Psychol Gen 143(5):1903-1922, 2014, Herwig, J Vis 15(16), 7, 2015). Predictions are supposed to be based on transsaccadic associations of peripheral and foveal object information. The main function of these predictions may be to conceal discrepancies in resolution and locations across saccades. Here we ask how predictions are affected by discrepancies between peripheral and foveal objects. Participants learned unfamiliar transsaccadic associations by making saccades to objects whose shape systematically changed during the saccade. Importantly, we manipulated the size of this change between participants to induce different magnitudes of object discrepancy. In a subsequent test, we found that judgment shifts of peripheral shape perception toward the predicted foveal input depended on change size during acquisition. Specifically, the contribution of prediction decreased for large changes but did not reach zero, showing that even for large changes (i.e., square to circle or vice versa) the prediction was not ignored completely. These findings indicate that object discrepancy during learning determines how much the resulting foveal prediction contributes to perception in the periphery.

Trans-saccadic adaptation of perceived size independent of saccadic adaptation

“…The observed modification of size perception was in line with several studies that demonstrated an interaction between the motor adaptation with a distortion of visual localization of the target executed by hand pointing or by perceptual reports (Awater, Burr, Lappe, Morrone, & Goldberg, 2005;Bahcall & Kowler, 1999;Bruno & Morrone, 2007;Collins, Doré-Mazars, & Lappe, 2007;Garaas & Pomplun, 2011;Gremmler, Bosco, Fattori, & Lappe, 2014;Zimmermann & Lappe, 2010). Several more recent studies have indicated that adaptation of visual features can be found without saccadic adaptation (Herwig & Schneider, 2014;Herwig, Weiß, & Schneider, 2015;Herwig, Weiß, & Schneider, 2018;Köller, Poth, & Herwig, 2020;Paeye, Collins, Cavanagh, & Herwig, 2018;Valsecchi & Gegenfurtner, 2016;Valsecchi, Cassanello, Herwig, Rolfs, & Gegenfurtner, 2020). Specifically, features for which this phenomenon occurs are spatial frequency (Herwig & Schneider, 2014;Herwig et al, 2018), shape (Herwig et al, 2015;Köller et al, 2020;Paeye et al, 2018) and size (Bosco et al, 2015;Valsecchi & Gegenfurtner, 2016;Valsecchi et al, 2020).…”

“…Many studies demonstrated that saccadic adaptation includes a mechanism that calibrates visual space perception by observing and correcting mismatches between the peripheral view of a target and the central view of the same target after a saccade toward it (Awater et al, 2005;Bahcall & Kowler, 1999;Bruno & Morrone, 2007;Collins et al, 2007;Garaas & Pomplun, 2011;Gremmler et al, 2014;Zimmermann & Lappe, 2010;Zimmermann & Lappe, 2016). As mentioned earlier, similar to changing position of the target in the traditional saccadic adaptation paradigm, other features such as spatial frequency (Herwig & Schneider, 2014), shape (Herwig et al, 2015;Köller et al, 2020;Paeye et al, 2018), and size (Bosco et al, 2015;Valsecchi & Gegenfurtner, 2016;Valsecchi et al, 2020) also appear adaptive across saccades. However, similar effects on shape and size perception have also been observed when objects were successively presented in peripheral and foveal view while observers maintained fixation.…”

“…Several more recent studies have indicated that adaptation of visual features can be found without saccadic adaptation (Herwig & Schneider, 2014;Herwig, Weiß, & Schneider, 2015;Herwig, Weiß, & Schneider, 2018;Köller, Poth, & Herwig, 2020;Paeye, Collins, Cavanagh, & Herwig, 2018;Valsecchi & Gegenfurtner, 2016;Valsecchi, Cassanello, Herwig, Rolfs, & Gegenfurtner, 2020). Specifically, features for which this phenomenon occurs are spatial frequency (Herwig & Schneider, 2014;Herwig et al, 2018), shape (Herwig et al, 2015;Köller et al, 2020;Paeye et al, 2018) and size (Bosco et al, 2015;Valsecchi & Gegenfurtner, 2016;Valsecchi et al, 2020). Particular focus has to be given to these two latter studies that tested paradigms able to demonstrate a size recalibration independent of saccade adaptation.…”

A review of interactions between peripheral and foveal vision

“…Herwig, Weiß, and Schneider (2015) demonstrated that transsaccadic associations can also be established when a geometric property, such as shape, changes transsaccadically, and swapped and normal stimuli are identified by a surface property such as colour. Köller, Poth, and Herwig (2020) showed that the effects of transsaccadic learning tend to saturate when the shape change reaches a certain magnitude, but they still occur. Learning that a square becomes a circle when fixated still makes the peripheral square look more roundish.…”

“…Nonetheless, it is possible that the observers get explicit feedback from the postsaccadic stimulus, and use it to change their perceptual decision criterion afterward. There is one finding that speaks against it: both observers who detect the transsaccadic change, and observers who do not detect it, show equivalent levels of re-calibration (Köller et al, 2020). One would expect that the observers who attribute their prediction error to a trick played on them by the experimenter would show a reduced re-calibration effect, if the latter depends on them noticing the transsaccadic prediction error and attributing it to a perceptual mis-judgment.…”