Foveal Distractors Research Articles

Late disruption of central visual field disrupts peripheral perception of form and color.

Evidence from neuroimaging and brain stimulation studies suggest that visual information about objects in the periphery is fed back to foveal retinotopic cortex in a separate representation that is essential for peripheral perception. The characteristics of this phenomenon have important theoretical implications for the role fovea-specific feedback might play in perception. In this work, we employed a recently developed behavioral paradigm to explore whether late disruption to central visual space impaired perception of color. In the first experiment, participants performed a shape discrimination task on colored novel objects in the periphery while fixating centrally. Consistent with the results from previous work, a visual distractor presented at fixation ~100ms after presentation of the peripheral stimuli impaired sensitivity to differences in peripheral shapes more than a visual distractor presented at other stimulus onset asynchronies. In a second experiment, participants performed a color discrimination task on the same colored objects. In a third experiment, we further tested for this foveal distractor effect with stimuli restricted to a low-level feature by using homogenous color patches. These two latter experiments resulted in a similar pattern of behavior: a central distractor presented at the critical stimulus onset asynchrony impaired sensitivity to peripheral color differences, but, importantly, the magnitude of the effect was stronger when peripheral objects contained complex shape information. These results show a behavioral effect consistent with disrupting feedback to the fovea, in line with the foveal feedback suggested by previous neuroimaging studies.

Disruption of Foveal Space Impairs Discrimination of Peripheral Objects.

Visual space is retinotopically mapped such that peripheral objects are processed in a cortical region outside the region that represents central vision. Despite this well-known fact, neuroimaging studies have found information about peripheral objects in the foveal confluence, the cortical region representing the fovea. Further, this information is behaviorally relevant: disrupting the foveal confluence using transcranial magnetic stimulation impairs discrimination of peripheral objects at time-points consistent with a disruption of feedback. If the foveal confluence receives feedback of information about peripheral objects to boost vision, there should be behavioral consequences of this phenomenon. Here, we tested the effect of foveal distractors at different stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) on discrimination of peripheral targets. Participants performed a discrimination task on target objects presented in the periphery while fixating centrally. A visual distractor presented at the fovea ~100 ms after presentation of the targets disrupted performance more than a central distractor presented at other SOAs. This was specific to a central distractor; a peripheral distractor at the same time point did not have the same effect. These results are consistent with the claim that foveal retinotopic cortex is recruited for extra-foveal perception. This study describes a new paradigm for investigating the nature of the foveal feedback phenomenon and demonstrates the importance of this feedback in peripheral vision.

The fovea is essential for peripheral vision: The effect of foveal distractors on extra-foveal perception

The fovea is essential for peripheral vision: The effect of foveal distractors on extra-foveal perception

Abnormal center-periphery gradient in spatial attention in simultanagnosia.

Patients suffering from simultanagnosia cannot perceive more than one object at a time. The underlying mechanism is incompletely understood. One hypothesis is that simultanagnosia reflects "tunnel vision," a constricted attention window around gaze, which precludes the grouping of individual objects. Although this idea has a long history in neuropsychology, the question whether the patients indeed have an abnormal attention gradient around the gaze has so far not been addressed. Here we tested this hypothesis in two simultanagnosia patients with bilateral parieto-occipital lesions and two control groups, with and without brain damage. We assessed the participants' ability to discriminate letters presented briefly at fixation with and without a peripheral distractor or in the visual periphery, with or without a foveal distractor. A constricted span of attention around gaze would predict an increased susceptibility to foveated versus peripheral distractors. Contrary to this prediction and unlike both control groups, the patients' ability to discriminate the target decreased more in the presence of peripheral compared with foveated distractors. Thus, the attentional spotlight in simultanagnosia does not fall on foveated objects as previously assumed, but rather abnormally highlights the periphery. Furthermore, we found the same center-periphery gradient in the patients' ability to recognize multiple objects. They detected multiple, but not single objects more accurately in the periphery than at fixation. These results suggest that an abnormal allocation of attention around the gaze can disrupt the grouping of individual objects into an integrated visual scene.

Time-course of feature-based top-down control in saccadic distractor effects.

Saccadic reaction time (SRT) is more strongly slowed by target-similar than dissimilar distractors (similarity effect). The time course of this similarity effect was investigated by varying target contrast and analyzing SRT distributions. With foveal distractors, the similarity effect increased with increasing SRT, suggesting that top-down enhancement of target features increased over time. This allowed for successful saccades to the peripheral target, but also entailed larger distraction by target-similar stimuli. Similarity effects with peripheral distractors did not increase with SRT, which we attribute to location-based inhibition containing the growing enhancement of target features. Strong inhibition was likely with peripheral distractors because they always appeared at the same task-irrelevant location. Prior inhibition with foveal distractors was weaker because this would have partially released fixation and entailed anticipations.

Influence of foveal distractors on saccadic eye movements: A dead zone for the global effect

Three experiments investigated the global effect with foveal distractors displayed in the same hemifield as more eccentric saccade targets. Distractors were x-letter strings of variable length and targets corresponded to the central letter of letter strings (e.g., ‘xxxkxxx’). Results showed that only foveal distractors longer than four letters (about 1°) deviated the eyes in a center-of-gravity manner thus suggesting a dead zone for the global effect. Short distractors influenced the likelihood of small-amplitude saccades (less than about 1°) and the latency of longer saccades. The findings were interpreted based on the dissociation between fixation and saccadic neurons. Implications for eye movements in reading were discussed.

Letter Identification and Lateral Masking in Dyslexic and Average Readers

Lateral masking and letter identification in dyslexic and average readers were investigated with a methodology that corrected for some of the weaknesses of the Geiger and Lettvin studies (1986, 1987). Target letters were presented alone or embedded within three-letter arrays at retinal locations from 0 degrees to 15 degrees to the right or left of a fixation point. A foveal letter, which was the same as or different from a target letter, appeared as a distractor, and comparisons were made between scaled and unscaled stimuli. Dyslexic readers were found to be better than average readers at detecting scaled letters embedded in an array in some of the peripheral locations tested. Unlike the results of Geiger and Lettvin, however, this finding of better letter detection in the periphery by dyslexics was limited to selected conditions of the study. Reading groups were also found to differ in responding to the foveal distractor in the letter task. Detection of letters by average readers was affected by the type of distractor, but this variable was not found to influence the dyslexic readers. These findings suggest some differences between dyslexic and average readers in attention to stimuli presented at multiple locations in the visual field.