Non-linear integration of crowded orientation signals

Crowding of oriented signals has been explained as linear, compulsory averaging of the signals from target and flankers [Parkes, L., Lund, J., Angelucci, A., Solomon, J. A., & Morgan, M. (2001). Compulsory averaging of crowded orientation signals in human vision. Nature Neuroscience, 4(7), 739-744]. On the other hand, a comparable search task with sparse stimuli is well modeled by a 'Signed-Max' rule that integrates non-linearly local tilt estimates [Baldassi, S., & Verghese, P. (2002). Comparing integration rules in visual search. Journal of Vision, 2(8), 559-570], as reflected by the bimodality of the distributions of reported tilts in a magnitude matching task [Baldassi, S., Megna, N., & Burr, D. C. (2006). Visual clutter causes high-magnitude errors. PLoS Biology, 4(3), e56]. This study compares the two models in the context of crowding by using a magnitude matching task, to measure distributions of perceived target angles and a localization task, to probe the degree of access to local information. Response distributions were bimodal, implying uncertainty, only in the presence of abutting flankers. Localization of the target is relatively preserved but it quantitatively falls in between the predictions of the two models, possibly suggesting local averaging followed by a max operation. This challenges the notion of global averaging and suggests some conscious access to local orientation estimates.

[1]  Robert Tibshirani,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap , 1994 .

[2]  J A Solomon,et al.  Odd-men-out are poorly localized in brief exposures. , 2001, Journal of vision.

[3]  W. Ma,et al.  A detection theory account of change detection. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[4]  C Koch,et al.  Seeing properties of an invisible object: Feature inheritance and shine-through , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[5]  P. McCullagh Tensor Methods in Statistics , 1987 .

[6]  J. Palmer Set-size effects in visual search: The effect of attention is independent of the stimulus for simple tasks , 1994, Vision Research.

[7]  Preeti Verghese,et al.  Comparing integration rules in visual search. , 2002, Journal of vision.

[8]  Jason M. Gold,et al.  Visualizing perceptual learning , 2010 .

[9]  J. Solomon Intrinsic uncertainty explains second responses. , 2007, Spatial vision.

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

[11]  David C Burr,et al.  Feature-based integration of orientation signals in visual search , 2000, Vision Research.

[12]  J. Palmer,et al.  Measuring the effect of attention on simple visual search. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  M. Morgan,et al.  Visual Search for a Tilted Target: Tests of Spatial Uncertainty Models , 1998, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[14]  D G Pelli,et al.  Uncertainty explains many aspects of visual contrast detection and discrimination. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

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

[16]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[17]  Susan A. Murphy,et al.  Monographs on statistics and applied probability , 1990 .

[18]  D. Burr,et al.  “Pop-out” of targets modulated in luminance or colour: the effect of intrinsic and extrinsic uncertainty , 2004, Vision Research.

[19]  Steven J. Luck,et al.  Quartering the spotlight: Spatial properties of selective storage in visual working memory , 2010 .

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

[21]  R. Watt,et al.  The computation of orientation statistics from visual texture , 1997, Vision Research.

[22]  D. Heeger Half-squaring in responses of cat striate cells , 1992, Visual Neuroscience.

[23]  A. Treisman,et al.  Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[24]  D. Burr,et al.  Visual Clutter Causes High-Magnitude Errors , 2006, PLoS biology.

[25]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .