Peripheral hyperacuity: isoeccentric bisection is better than radial bisection.

Performance of three-dot bisection was determined as a function of orientation for a variety of feature separations and field meridians at eccentricities of 0-10 deg for two observers. The dot stimuli and separations were scaled in size to compensate for eccentricity. The precision of three-dot bisection was found to depend on the direction of test-feature offset. In the fovea, horizontal and vertical bisections were better than oblique bisections, while at eccentricities of 5-20 deg, isoeccentric (on a tangent to a circle of a given eccentricity) bisection was better than radial bisection. The direction of offset was more important than the orientation of the stimulus. Large separations showed a stronger effect than small separations. The anisotropy of bisection appears different from the meridional effect for resolution and is unlikely to be simply related to a local anisotropy of the cortical magnification factor.

[1]  J Rovamo,et al.  Resolution of gratings oriented along and across meridians in peripheral vision. , 1982, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[2]  D M Levi,et al.  Peripheral hyperacuity: three-dot bisection scales to a single factor from 0 to 10 degrees. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[3]  T. Wiesel,et al.  Functional architecture of macaque monkey visual cortex , 1977 .

[4]  S. McKee,et al.  Dichoptic hyperacuity: the precision of nonius alignment. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[5]  J. Rovamo,et al.  Cortical magnification factor predicts the photopic contrast sensitivity of peripheral vision , 1978, Nature.

[6]  D. Hubel,et al.  Ferrier lecture - Functional architecture of macaque monkey visual cortex , 1977, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[7]  W. Levick,et al.  Orientation bias of cat retinal ganglion cells , 1980, Nature.

[8]  A. Leventhal,et al.  Relationship between preferred orientation and receptive field position of neurons in cat striate cortex , 1983, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[9]  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.

[10]  S. Klein,et al.  Positional uncertainty in peripheral and amblyopic vision , 1987, Vision Research.

[11]  O. Braddick.  Visual hyperacuity. , 1984, Nature.

[12]  W. Charman,et al.  Off-axis image quality in the human eye , 1981, Vision Research.

[13]  Gerald Westheimer,et al.  Temporal and spatial interference with vernier acuity , 1975, Vision Research.

[14]  Hugh R. Wilson,et al.  Eccentricity dependence of contrast matching and oblique masking , 1985, Vision Research.

[15]  L A Temme,et al.  Peripheral Visual Field is Radially Organized , 1985, American journal of optometry and physiological optics.

[16]  F. W. Weymouth.  Visual sensory units and the minimal angle of resolution. , 1958, American journal of ophthalmology.

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

[18]  S. Klein,et al.  Position sense of the peripheral retina. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[19]  S. Appelle.  Perception and discrimination as a function of stimulus orientation: the "oblique effect" in man and animals. , 1972, Psychological bulletin.