Lower Visual Field Advantage Research Articles

Visual Field Advantage: Redefined by Training?

Previc (1990) postulated that most peri-personal space interactions occurred in the lower visual field (LVF), leading to an advantage when compared to the upper visual field (UVF). It is not clear if extensive practice can affect the difference between interactions in the LVF/UVF. We tested male and female basketball varsity athletes and non-athletes on a DynaVision D2 visuomotor reaction task. We recruited basketball players because in their training they spend significant amount of time processing UVF information. We found a LVF advantage in all participants, but this advantage was significantly reduced in the athletes. The results suggest that training can be a powerful modulator of visuomotor function.

Automatic Detection of Orientation Contrast Occurs at Early but Not Earliest Stages of Visual Cortical Processing in Humans.

Orientation contrast is formed when some elements orient differently from their surroundings. Although orientation contrast can be processed in the absence of top-down attention, the underlying neural mechanism for this automatic processing in humans is controversial. In particular, whether automatic detection of orientation contrast occurs at the initial feedforward stage in the primary visual cortex (i.e., V1) remains unclear. Here, we used event-related potentials (ERPs) to examine the automatic processing of orientation contrast in humans. In three experiments, participants completed a task at fixation while orientation contrasts were presented in the periphery, either in the upper visual field (UVF) or the lower visual field (LVF). All experiments showed significant positive potentials evoked by orientation contrasts over occipital areas within 100 ms after stimulus onset. These contrast effects occurred 10–20 ms later than the C1 components evoked by identically located abrupt onset stimuli which indexes the initial feedforward activity in V1. Compared with those in the UVF, orientation contrasts in the LVF evoked earlier and stronger activities, probably reflecting a LVF advantage in processing of orientation contrast. Even when orientation contrasts were rendered almost invisible by backward masking (in Experiment 2), the early contrast effect in the LVF was not disrupted. These findings imply that automatic processing of orientation contrast could occur at early visual cortical processing stages, but was slightly later than the initial feedforward processing in human V1; such automatic processing may involve either recurrent processing in V1 or feedforward processing in early extrastriate visual cortex.Highlights -We examined the earliest automatic processing of orientation contrast in humans with ERPs.-Significant orientation contrast effect started within 100 ms in early visual areas.-The earliest orientation contrast effect occurred later than the C1 evoked by abrupt onset stimuli.-The earliest orientation contrast effect was independent of top-down attention and awareness.-Automatic detection of orientation contrast arises slightly after the initial feedforward processing in V1.

Individual differences in visual field shape modulate the effects of attention on the lower visual field advantage in crowding.

It has previously been reported that visual crowding of a target by flankers is stronger in the upper visual field than in the lower, and this finding has been attributed to greater attentional resolution in the lower hemifield (He, Cavanagh, & Intriligator, 1996). Here we show that the upper/lower asymmetry in visual crowding can be explained by natural variations in the borders of each individual's visual field. Specifically, asymmetry in crowding along the vertical meridian can be almost entirely accounted for by replacing the conventional definition of visual field location, in units of degrees of visual angle, with a definition based on the ratio of the extents of an individual's upper and lower visual field. We also show that the upper/lower crowding asymmetry is eliminated when stimulus eccentricity is expressed in units of percentage of visual field extent but is present when the conventional measure of visual angle is used. We further demonstrate that the relationship between visual field extent and perceptual asymmetry is most evident when participants are able to focus their attention on the target location. These results reveal important influences of visual field boundaries on visual perception, even for visual field locations far from those boundaries.

Does binocular vision drive the lower visual field advantage for grasping?

Humans achieve better performance when reaching and grasping stimuli positioned in the lower than in the upper visual field. Moreover, the brain regions involved in visuomotor control also show a lower visual field preference for hand actions (e.g., Rossit et al., 2013). The current study investigated whether the lower visual field advantage for grasping is related to the availability of binocular cues. Right-handed participants were asked to fixate on one of two light-emitting diodes such that objects could appear in either the upper or lower right visual fields. While keeping fixation, they were required to reach out and grasp objects under conditions of either monocular or binocular vision. Grasping movements were performed towards self-illuminated objects in open-loop and simultaneously with a fixation task. In line with previous studies, the analysis of kinematic parameters revealed that under monocular viewing, grip apertures were larger than under binocular viewing. Moreover under both binocular and monocular viewing, grip apertures were less variable when objects were viewed in the lower as opposed to the upper visual field. In addition, under binocular viewing there was a stronger relationship between object size and grip aperture when objects were presented in the lower visual field as compared to in the upper visual field, whereas no visual field effect was observed in the monocular condition. These results indicate that binocular cues may play an important role in the lower visual field advantage for grasping. In particular, the availability of binocular cues may allow better programming of grip scaling specifically towards objects in the lower visual field, reflecting the fact than in our everyday lives this is the region of space where we mostly interact with objects.

Lower visual field advantage in multiple object tracking is mediated by a non-attentive motion mechanism

Lower visual field advantage in multiple object tracking is mediated by a non-attentive motion mechanism

Perceptual processing time differences owing to visual field asymmetries

Recent experiments have reported increased endpoint accuracy for movements performed in the lower vs. the upper visual field, suggesting that there is superior feedback-based processing in the lower visual field owing to a visuomotor subsystem processing advantage. Differences, however, in the perceptual subsystem may also play a role in the lower visual field advantage. In this study, participants performed an inspection time task, a measure of perceptual processing time, requiring the identification of an asymmetrical 'pi' stimulus presented in the central, upper, or the lower visual field for a brief period. Significant differences between the percentage of correct identifications between visual fields indicated a lower visual field advantage over upper visual field for perceptual identification.

Effects of background color on detecting spot stimuli in the upper and lower visual fields

Participants were required to detect spot stimuli briefly presented to the upper, central, or lower visual fields. The stimuli were presented either on a green or a red background. Results showed that reaction time (RT) was shorter for the lower visual field (LVF) compared to the upper visual field (UVF). Furthermore, this LVF advantage was significantly reduced in the red background condition compared to the green one. A red light is known to suppress activity of the magno-dominated stream. Therefore, the LVF advantage in RT can be explained as resulting from the biased representation of the magno-dominated stream in the LVF.

Transsaccadic perception of translating objects: effects of landmark objects and visual field position

Previously Gysen, De Graef, and Verfaillie [Vision Research 42 (2002) 379] showed that, with stimulus displays presenting one stationary and one translating object, sensitivity for intrasaccadic displacements was higher for translating than for stationary objects. In the present paper the importance of the relative encoding of the path of the translating object towards the stationary object is investigated. In three experiments we compared detection of intrasaccadic displacements of translating objects in relative motion (moving towards the landmark object) and translating objects moving in isolation. No `facilitatory' effect of relative motion was found. However a visual field effect was present. Performance was always better for the translating object presented in the lower part in comparison to the upper part of the visual field. A fourth experiment investigated the sensitivity for intrasaccadic displacements of stationary and translating objects presented in the upper as well as in the lower visual field. A lower visual field advantage was observed. The superior performance for translating objects, as was found previously, was confirmed in the lower and upper visual field.

Stronger occipital cortical activation to lower than upper visual field stimuli. Neuromagnetic recordings.

We recorded whole-scalp magnetoencephalographic (MEG) responses to black-and-white checkerboards to study whether the human cortical responses are quantitatively similar to stimulation of the lower and upper visual field at small, 0-6 degrees, eccentricities. All stimuli evoked strong occipital responses peaking at 50-100 ms (mean 75 ms). The activation was modeled with a single equivalent current dipole in the contralateral occipital cortex, close to the calcarine fissure, agreeing with an activation of the V1/V2 cortex. The dipole was, on average, twice as strong to lower than to upper field stimuli. Responses to hemifield stimuli that extended to both lower and upper fields resembled the responses to lower field stimuli in source current direction and strength. These results agree with psychophysical data, which indicate lower visual field advantage in complex visual processing. Parieto-occipital responses in the putative V6 complex were similar to lower and upper field stimuli.