Thresholds vary between spatial and temporal forced-choice paradigms: the case of lateral interactions in peripheral vision.

Psychophysicists use spatial or temporal two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) paradigms interchangeably. Thus, experiments with the same general goal are carried out using one or the other paradigm by distinct or even the same research groups. For example, this situation has occurred both in studies on visual sensitivity in dyslexia and in studies on lateral interactions in peripheral vision. Conflicting results in either field (e.g. whether or not dyslexics have a visual deficit and whether or not peripheral detection is facilitated by the presence of flankers) appear to be resolved on the surmise that spatial and temporal 2AFC paradigms indeed produce different results. We designed experiments in which peripheral detection thresholds for Gabor patches (in the presence or absence of suprathreshold flankers) could be measured using completely equivalent spatial and temporal 2AFC paradigms so that any resultant difference can be unequivocally attributed to the effect of the paradigms themselves. The results showed that spatial 2AFC renders significantly lower sensitivity than temporal 2AFC when the target is presented along with suprathreshold flankers, but about the same sensitivity as temporal 2AFC when the target is presented alone. In the end, this resulted in statistically significant facilitation in peripheral vision only when measured with temporal 2AFC. Separate experiments at each of several peripheral locations revealed that the presence and magnitude of this effect varies not only with psychophysical paradigm but also with retinal locus.

[1]  U. Polat,et al.  The architecture of perceptual spatial interactions , 1994, Vision Research.

[2]  Algis J. Vingrys,et al.  Calibration of a color monitor for visual psychophysics , 1993 .

[3]  M. Carrasco,et al.  Spatial covert attention increases contrast sensitivity across the CSF: support for signal enhancement , 2000, Vision Research.

[4]  The contrast sensitivity gradient across the major oblique meridians of the human visual field , 1990, Vision Research.

[5]  C. Koch,et al.  Flanker effects in peripheral contrast discrimination—psychophysics and modeling , 2001, Vision Research.

[6]  M. García-Pérez,et al.  The role of parametric assumptions in adaptive Bayesian estimation. , 2004, Psychological methods.

[7]  M. Leek.  Adaptive procedures in psychophysical research , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[8]  T. Cohn,et al.  Detectability of a luminance increment: effect of spatial uncertainty. , 1974, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[9]  C Kaernbach,et al.  Simple adaptive testing with the weighted up-down method , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  James G. May,et al.  Temporal order judgements in good and poor readers , 1988, Neuropsychologia.

[11]  U Polat,et al.  Spatial interactions in human vision: from near to far via experience-dependent cascades of connections. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[12]  B. Treutwein.  Adaptive psychophysical procedures , 1995, Vision Research.

[13]  M. Carrasco,et al.  Covert attention affects the psychometric function of contrast sensitivity , 2002, Vision Research.

[14]  F A Wichmann,et al.  Ning for Helpful Comments and Suggestions. This Paper Benefited Con- Siderably from Conscientious Peer Review, and We Thank Our Reviewers the Psychometric Function: I. Fitting, Sampling, and Goodness of Fit , 2001 .

[15]  U. Polat,et al.  Lateral interactions between spatial channels: Suppression and facilitation revealed by lateral masking experiments , 1993, Vision Research.

[16]  D Swift,et al.  The use of VisionWorks in visual psychophysics research. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[17]  E. Peli,et al.  Lateral interactions: size does matter , 2002, Vision Research.

[18]  A E Burgess,et al.  Visual signal detection. II. Signal-location identification. , 1984, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[19]  J. F. Stein,et al.  Temporal and Spatial Processing in Reading Disabled and Normal Children , 1995, Cortex.

[20]  Geoffrey W Stuart,et al.  Can contrast sensitivity functions in dyslexia be explained by inattention rather than a magnocellular deficit? , 2001, Vision Research.

[21]  R. F. Hess,et al.  The contrast sensitivity gradient across the human visual field: With emphasis on the low spatial frequency range , 1989, Vision Research.

[22]  M Ahissar,et al.  Impaired temporal contrast sensitivity in dyslexics is specific to retain-and-compare paradigms. , 2001, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[23]  S. Corkin.  Serial-ordering deficits in inferior readers. , 1974, Neuropsychologia.

[24]  M. García-Pérez,et al.  Sampling Plans for Fitting the Psychometric Function , 2005, The Spanish Journal of Psychology.

[25]  R F Hess,et al.  Relationship between facilitation at threshold and suprathreshold contour integration. , 1998, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[26]  E. Peli,et al.  Image invariance with changes in size: the role of peripheral contrast thresholds. , 1991, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[27]  E Peli,et al.  Contrast sensitivity in dyslexia: deficit or artifact? , 1997, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[28]  Eli Peli,et al.  Facilitation of contrast detection in near-peripheral vision , 2004, Vision Research.

[29]  Enhanced sensitivity for peripherally‐presented collinearly‐aligned stimulus elements: contour detection or spatial summation? , 2001, Clinical & experimental optometry.

[30]  S. Klein,et al.  Measuring, estimating, and understanding the psychometric function: A commentary , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[31]  E Peli,et al.  Luminance artifacts of cathode-ray tube displays for vision research. , 2001, Spatial vision.