Influence of foveal load on the functional visual field

The functional visual field defined in terms of a discrimination task of a target presented peripherally among ambiguous background patterns was investigated for various foveal loads which were to be recognized at the central retina. Foveal loads were numbers, letters, place names, traffic signs, and other figures to simulate commonplace situations for foveal information processing, and grouped into three in order of recognition difficulty based on daily experience. Boundaries of the functional visual field were obtained for simple fixation and for certain foveal loads. Comparison of these boundaries clearly showed shrinkage of the functional visual field size with the foveal loads of greater recognition difficulty.

[1]  F. L. Engel.  Visual conspicuity and selective background interference in eccentric vision. , 1974, Vision research.

[2]  N. Mackworth.  Visual noise causes tunnel vision , 1965 .

[3]  L L SLOAN,et al.  Peripheral visual acuity with special reference to scotopic illumination. , 1947, American journal of ophthalmology.

[4]  H P BAHRICK,et al.  Effect of incentives upon reactions to peripheral stimuli. , 1952, Journal of experimental psychology.

[5]  G H Egstrom,et al.  Perceptual Narrowing in Novice Divers1 , 1966, Human factors.

[6]  Charles N. Abernethy,et al.  The effect of feedback on luminance thresholds for peripherally presented stimuli , 1971 .

[7]  Walter Stiles,et al.  The Effect of a Glaring Light Source on Extrafoveal Vision , 1937 .

[8]  H W Leibowitz,et al.  The Effect of a Central Task on Luminance Thresholds for Peripherally Presented Stimuli , 1969, Human factors.

[9]  H. Bouma.  Visual interference in the parafoveal recognition of initial and final letters of words. , 1973, Vision research.

[10]  Charles N. Abernethy,et al.  The Effect of Heat Stress on Reaction Time to Centrally and Peripherally Presented Stimuli , 1972, Human factors.

[11]  G. Weltman,et al.  Perceptual Narrowing during Simulated Pressure-Chamber Exposure , 1971, Human factors.

[12]  F. L. Engel.  Visual conspicuity, directed attention and retinal locus. , 1971, Vision research.

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

[14]  J VOLKMANN,et al.  Mapping a Field of Short-Time Visual Search , 1962, Science.

[15]  J. Easterbrook.  The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. , 1959, Psychological review.

[16]  M. Bryden,et al.  LEFT-RIGHT DIFFERENCES IN TACHISTOSCOPIC RECOGNITION. , 1963, Journal of experimental psychology.

[17]  G. M. Haslerud,et al.  INFLUENCE ON EXTREME PERIPHERAL VISION OF ATTENTION TO A VISUAL OR AUDITORY TASK. , 1964, Journal of experimental psychology.

[18]  G. C. Higgins,et al.  Photographic granularity and graininess; some characteristics of the visual system of importance in the evaluation of graininess and granularity. , 1947, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[19]  A. L. I︠A︡rbus.  Eye Movements and Vision , 1967 .

[20]  F. Attneave.  Physical determinants of the judged complexity of shapes. , 1957, Journal of experimental psychology.

[21]  A. Bursill.  The Restriction of Peripheral Vision during Exposure to Hot and Humid Conditions , 1958 .

[22]  A F Sanders,et al.  Some aspects of the selective process in the functional visual field. , 1970, Ergonomics.

[23]  H. Moskowitz,et al.  Effects of Alcohol on Peripheral Vision as a Function of Attention , 1974, Human factors.