2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2011.02.063
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Upper and lower visual field differences in perceptual asymmetries

Abstract: Neurologically normal individuals show a leftward spatial bias and tend to collide with objects on the right side more frequently than on the left. The upper visual field is associated with extrapersonal space, and mediated by the ventral stream through parvocellular projections.The lower visual field is associated with peripersonal space, and mediated by the dorsal stream through magnocellular projections. Upper and lower visual field differences have been observed in perceptual asymmetries but results have b… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

11
60
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 72 publications
(74 citation statements)
references
References 158 publications
(494 reference statements)
11
60
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The estimated parameters of g(x, y) are listed in Table 3 and shown in Figure 7. We note that the summation field is, on average, displaced slightly to the lower left visual field, consistent with previous results showing higher contrast sensitivity for low to moderate spatial frequencies in the lower visual field (Rijsdijk et al, 1980;Thomas and Elias, 2011), and the general finding that tasks with a lower visual field advan-tage also tend to be biased to the left visual field (Christman and Niebauer, 1997;Thomas and Elias, 2011). We find that incorporating this global attenuation function to capture the falloff in sensitivity seen in our classification images also leads to an improvement in the trial-by-trial consistency of human and model responses (see below, Evaluation and comparison with competing models).…”
Section: Estimating the Local Energy Modelsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…The estimated parameters of g(x, y) are listed in Table 3 and shown in Figure 7. We note that the summation field is, on average, displaced slightly to the lower left visual field, consistent with previous results showing higher contrast sensitivity for low to moderate spatial frequencies in the lower visual field (Rijsdijk et al, 1980;Thomas and Elias, 2011), and the general finding that tasks with a lower visual field advan-tage also tend to be biased to the left visual field (Christman and Niebauer, 1997;Thomas and Elias, 2011). We find that incorporating this global attenuation function to capture the falloff in sensitivity seen in our classification images also leads to an improvement in the trial-by-trial consistency of human and model responses (see below, Evaluation and comparison with competing models).…”
Section: Estimating the Local Energy Modelsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Interestingly, there is growing evidence for perceptual and neural asymmetries between the dorsal and ventral visual fields, with improved motion, global processing, and coordinate spatial judgments in the lower visual field and improved visual search, local processing, and categorical judgments in the upper visual field, especially for the left visual field (49)(50)(51)(52)(53). Such variations would not be apparent in our measurements based on eccentricity from fixation, which grouped the polar angles.…”
Section: Comparisons With Studies On the Cortical Effects Of Other Rementioning
confidence: 69%
“…When this factor is controlled, the apparent bias for the upper part of words vanishes completely, as we revealed in Experiment 2. Hence, the bias for the upper part of objects that occurs in the visual perception of particular features in faces (e.g., Caldara & Seghier, 2009) and objects (Thomas & Elias, 2011) does not seem to affect the automatic detection of letter features during visual-word recognition.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…One explanation is that this bias parallels the upward biases that occur in the visual perception of features of objects and faces (see Caldara et al, 2006, andElias, 2011, for recent evidence regarding these biases). As Huey (1908) indicated, "we habitually find most meanings in the upper part of objects; we ourselves are so placed and so oriented as to bring this about" (p. 65).…”
mentioning
confidence: 90%