Configuration influence on crowding.

The influence of configuration on visual crowding was tested. Eight Gabor patches surrounding a central one were arranged in a way that created several global configurations differing by their internal arrangements (smooth contour vs. random), while still preserving pairwise relationships between the target and flankers. Orientation discrimination and contrast detection of the central Gabor were measured. These measurements revealed differences in the magnitude of crowding produced by the different configurations, especially on the discrimination task. The crowding effect was stronger when random configurations were used and was reduced considerably when a smooth one was used. These results showed the typical dependence of crowding on eccentricity and target-flanker separation, which was independent of the configural effect. Controlling flankers' local orientation allowed addressing the nature of the effect. It was found to be sensitive to spatial relations and did not represent a simple averaging of local orientation estimates. Our results show that crowding operates at a level where configuration information has already been extracted. We relate all this to the object-based nature of perception.

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

[2]  I Kovács,et al.  A closed curve is much more than an incomplete one: effect of closure in figure-ground segmentation. , 1993, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[3]  David J. Field,et al.  Contour integration by the human visual system: Evidence for a local “association field” , 1993, Vision Research.

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

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

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

[7]  S. McKee,et al.  The effect of spatial configuration on surround suppression of contrast sensitivity. , 2006, Journal of vision.

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

[9]  H. Levitt.  Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

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

[12]  D. Sagi,et al.  Configuration saliency revealed in short duration binocular rivalry , 1999, Vision Research.

[13]  D. Sagi,et al.  Effects of spatial configuration on contrast detection , 1998, Vision Research.

[14]  H. Wilson,et al.  Lateral interactions in peripherally viewed texture arrays. , 1997, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[15]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Attentional resolution , 1997, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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

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

[18]  Anke Huckauf,et al.  Task set determines the amount of crowding , 2007, Psychological research.

[19]  C. Gilbert.  Adult cortical dynamics. , 1998, Physiological reviews.

[20]  U. Polat,et al.  Lateral interactions between spatial channels: Suppression and facilitation revealed by lateral masking experiments , 1993, Vision Research.

[21]  U. Polat,et al.  The architecture of perceptual spatial interactions , 1994, Vision Research.

[22]  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.

[23]  B. S. Rubenstein,et al.  Spatial variability as a limiting factor in texture-discrimination tasks: implications for performance asymmetries. , 1990, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

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

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

[26]  Dov Sagi,et al.  Eccentricity effects on lateral interactions , 2005, Vision Research.

[27]  T. Nazir,et al.  Lateral masking: Limitations of the feature interaction account , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[28]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Attentional resolution and the locus of visual awareness , 1996, Nature.

[29]  J. Duncan.  Selective attention and the organization of visual information. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. General.