Cortical distance determines whether flankers cause crowding or the tilt illusion.

Differences between target and flanker orientations become exaggerated in the tilt illusion. However, small differences sometimes go unnoticed. This small-angle assimilation shares many similarities with other types of visual crowding but is typically found only with small and/or hard-to-see stimuli. In Experiment 1, we investigated the effect of stimulus visibility on orientation bias using relatively large stimuli. The introduction of visual noise increased the perceived similarity of target and flanker orientations at retinal eccentricities of 4° and 10°; however, small-angle assimilation was found only at 10°. The effects of eccentricity were reduced in Experiment 2, when our stimuli were "M-scaled" for equal cortical coverage. Further support for a cortical substrate was obtained in Experiment 3, in which the effects of target-flanker separation were measured. When biases from all three experiments are expressed as a fraction of the inducing flankers' angle, and plotted as a function of the approximate cortical separation between the target and its closest flanker, they form a curve like the cross-section of half a Mexican hat. We conclude that the tilt illusion and small-angle assimilation reflect opponent influences on orientation perception. The strength of each influence increases with cortical proximity and stimulus visibility, but the one responsible for assimilation has a lesser extent.

[1]  S. Shimojo,et al.  Motion capture changes to induced motion at higher luminance contrasts, smaller eccentricities, and larger inducer sizes , 1993, Vision Research.

[2]  P. Wenderoth,et al.  The different mechanisms of the direct and indirect tilt illusions , 1988, Vision Research.

[3]  D. Tolhurst,et al.  Orientation illusions and after-effects: Inhibition between channels , 1975, Vision Research.

[4]  M G Rosa,et al.  Visuotopic organisation of striate cortex in the marmoset monkey (Callithrix jacchus) , 1996, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[5]  B. C. Motter,et al.  The roles of cortical image separation and size in active visual search performance. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[6]  M. Morgan,et al.  Strong tilt illusions always reduce orientation acuity , 2009, Vision Research.

[7]  D. Pelli,et al.  Crowding is unlike ordinary masking: distinguishing feature integration from detection. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[8]  J. Solomon.  Contrast discrimination: Second responses reveal the relationship between the mean and variance of visual signals , 2007, Vision Research.

[9]  J. Wolfowitz,et al.  Introduction to the Theory of Statistics. , 1951 .

[10]  D. H. Kelly.  Theory of flicker and transient responses. I. Uniform fields. , 1971, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[11]  Tomaso A. Poggio,et al.  A Canonical Neural Circuit for Cortical Nonlinear Operations , 2008, Neural Computation.

[12]  D. H. Kelly.  Theory of flicker and transient responses. II. Counterphase gratings. , 1971, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[13]  S. Klein,et al.  Vernier acuity, crowding and cortical magnification , 1985, Vision Research.

[14]  D. Pelli,et al.  The uncrowded window of object recognition , 2008, Nature Neuroscience.

[15]  M. Morgan,et al.  Capacity Limits for Spatial Discrimination , 2005 .

[16]  C. Gilbert,et al.  Spatial distribution of contextual interactions in primary visual cortex and in visual perception. , 2000, Journal of neurophysiology.

[17]  M. Morgan,et al.  Stochastic re-calibration: contextual effects on perceived tilt , 2006, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[18]  J. Gibson.  Adaptation, after-effect, and contrast in the perception of tilted lines. II. Simultaneous contrast and the areal restriction of the after-effect. , 1937 .

[19]  M. Morgan,et al.  Crowding and the tilt illusion: toward a unified account. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[20]  Randolph Blake,et al.  Perceptual consequences of centre–surround antagonism in visual motion processing , 2003, Nature.

[21]  Patrick Cavanagh,et al.  The extent of crowding in peripheral vision does not scale with target size , 2002, Vision Research.

[22]  Robert O. Duncan,et al.  Cortical Magnification within Human Primary Visual Cortex Correlates with Acuity Thresholds , 2003, Neuron.

[23]  R Over,et al.  Orientation illusion and masking in central and peripheral vision. , 1972, Journal of experimental psychology.

[24]  J. Lund,et al.  Compulsory averaging of crowded orientation signals in human vision , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[25]  J. Gibson,et al.  Adaptation, after-effect and contrast in the perception of curved lines. , 1933 .

[26]  R. Jacobs.  Visual resolution and contour interaction in the fovea and periphery , 1979, Vision Research.

[27]  J. Rovamo,et al.  Isotropy of cortical magnification and topography of striate cortex , 1984, Vision Research.

[28]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[29]  J. Gibson,et al.  ADAPTATION , AFTEREFFECT AND CONTRAST IN THE PERCEPTION OF TILTED LINES , 2004 .

[30]  S. T. te Pas,et al.  Uncertainty reveals surround modulation of shape. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[31]  M. Hanada.  Effects of the noise level on induced motion , 2004, Vision Research.

[32]  Szonya Durant,et al.  Dynamics of the influence of segmentation cues on orientation perception , 2006, Vision Research.

[33]  D. Hubel,et al.  Sequence regularity and geometry of orientation columns in the monkey striate cortex , 1974, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[34]  John K. Tsotsos,et al.  Neurobiology of Attention , 2005 .

[35]  Ian P. Howard,et al.  Human visual orientation , 1982 .

[36]  H. BOUMA,et al.  Interaction Effects in Parafoveal Letter Recognition , 1970, Nature.

[37]  H. Burian,et al.  A study of separation difficulty. Its relationship to visual acuity in normal and amblyopic eyes. , 1962, American journal of ophthalmology.