Crowding with conjunctions of simple features.

Several recent studies have related crowding with the feature integration stage in visual processing. In order to understand the mechanisms involved in this stage, it is important to use stimuli that have several features to integrate, and these features should be clearly defined and measurable. In this study, Gabor patches were used as target and distractor stimuli. The stimuli differed in three dimensions: spatial frequency, orientation, and color. A group of 3, 5, or 7 objects was presented briefly at 4 deg eccentricity of the visual field. The observers' task was to identify the object located in the center of the group. A strong effect of the number of distractors was observed, consistent with various spatial pooling models. The analysis of incorrect responses revealed that these were a mix of feature errors and mislocalizations of the target object. Feature errors were not purely random, but biased by the features of distractors. We propose a simple feature integration model that predicts most of the observed regularities.

[1]  Endel Põder,et al.  Crowding, feature integration, and two kinds of "attention". , 2006, Journal of vision.

[2]  A. T. Smith,et al.  Estimating receptive field size from fMRI data in human striate and extrastriate visual cortex. , 2001, Cerebral cortex.

[3]  Dennis M. Levi,et al.  The perception of spatial order at a glance , 2005, Vision Research.

[4]  S. Klein,et al.  Suppressive and facilitatory spatial interactions in peripheral vision: peripheral crowding is neither size invariant nor simple contrast masking. , 2002, Journal of vision.

[5]  G Wolford,et al.  Perturbation model for letter identification. , 1975, Psychological review.

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

[7]  H. Bouma,et al.  Eccentric vision: Adverse interactions between line segments , 1976, Vision Research.

[8]  Anirvan S. Nandy,et al.  The nature of letter crowding as revealed by first- and second-order classification images. , 2007, Journal of Vision.

[9]  I. Rentschler,et al.  Contrast thresholds for identification of numeric characters in direct and eccentric view , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  D A Allport,et al.  Perceptual integration of identity, location and colour , 1986, Psychological research.

[11]  M. Morgan,et al.  The Role of Target Salience in Crowding , 2005, Perception.

[12]  C. Gross,et al.  Visual topography of V2 in the macaque , 1981, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[13]  D. Levi,et al.  The effect of similarity and duration on spatial interaction in peripheral vision. , 1994, Spatial vision.

[14]  Peter Neri,et al.  Spatial resolution for feature binding is impaired in peripheral and amblyopic vision. , 2006, Journal of neurophysiology.

[15]  D. Levi,et al.  The two-dimensional shape of spatial interaction zones in the parafovea , 1992, Vision Research.

[16]  Anke Huckauf,et al.  What various kinds of errors tell us about lateral masking effects , 2002 .

[17]  W. Estes,et al.  Similarity-related channel interactions in visual processing. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  B E Butler,et al.  On the nature of perceptual limits in vision , 1986, Psychological research.

[19]  R Ivry,et al.  A formal theory of feature binding in object perception. , 1996, Psychological review.

[20]  S. Klein,et al.  Suppressive and facilitatory spatial interactions in amblyopic vision , 2002, Vision Research.

[21]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Some factors determining efficiency of selective attention. , 1970 .

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

[23]  G Wolford,et al.  Contour interaction as a function of retinal eccentricity , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.

[24]  M. Donk.  Illusory conjunctions are an illusion: The effects of target-nontarget similarity on conjunction and feature errors. , 1999 .

[25]  Elizabeth L Bjork,et al.  On the nature of input channels in visual processing. , 1977, Psychological review.

[26]  William Prinzmetal,et al.  A measurement theory of illusory conjunctions. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  K H Shum,et al.  Evidence for feature perturbations , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[28]  Hans Strasburger,et al.  Unfocussed spatial attention underlies the crowding effect in indirect form vision Generation , 2005 .

[29]  Dov Sagi,et al.  Configuration influence on crowding. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[30]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[32]  John H. R. Maunsell,et al.  The visual field representation in striate cortex of the macaque monkey: Asymmetries, anisotropies, and individual variability , 1984, Vision Research.

[33]  R. Ivry,et al.  Effect of feature similarity on illusory conjunctions , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[34]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  The Spatial Resolution of Visual Attention , 2001, Cognitive Psychology.

[35]  C. Gross,et al.  Visuotopic organization and extent of V3 and V4 of the macaque , 1988, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

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

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