The Experts below are selected from a list of 16155 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Nikolaus F Troje - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Peripheral Vision good for biological motion bad for signal noise segregation
Journal of Vision, 2007Co-Authors: Benjamin Thompson, Robert F. Hess, Bruce C Hansen, Nikolaus F TrojeAbstract:Biological motion perception, having both evolutionary and social importance, is performed by the human visual system with a high degree of sensitivity. It is unclear whether Peripheral Vision has access to the specialized neural systems underlying biological motion perception; however, given the motion component, one would expect Peripheral Vision to be, if not specialized, at least highly accurate in perceiving biological motion. Here we show that the periphery can indeed perceive biological motion. However, the periphery suffers from an inability to detect biological motion signals when they are embedded in dynamic visual noise. We suggest that this Peripheral deficit is not due to biological motion perception per se, but to signal/noise segregation.
-
Peripheral Vision good for biological motion bad for signal noise segregation
Journal of Vision, 2007Co-Authors: Benjamin Thompson, Robert F. Hess, Bruce C Hansen, Nikolaus F TrojeAbstract:Biological motion perception, having both evolutionary and social importance, is performed by the human visual system witha high degree of sensitivity. It is unclear whether Peripheral Vision has access to the specialized neural systems underlyingbiological motion perception; however, given the motion component, one would expect Peripheral Vision to be, if notspecialized, at least highly accurate in perceiving biological motion. Here we show that the periphery can indeed perceivebiological motion. However, the periphery suffers from an inability to detect biological motion signals when they areembedded in dynamic visual noise. We suggest that this Peripheral deficit is not due to biological motion perception per se,but to signal/noise segregation.Keywords: biological motion, Peripheral Vision, noise segregationCitation: Thompson, B., Hansen, B. C., Hess, R. F., & Troje, N. F. (2007). Peripheral Vision: Good for biological motion, badfor signal noise segregation? Journal of Vision, 7(10):12, 1–7, http://journalofVision.org/7/10/12/, doi:10.1167/7.10.12.
Benjamin Thompson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
anodal transcranial direct current stimulation reduces collinear lateral inhibition in normal Peripheral Vision
PLOS ONE, 2020Co-Authors: Rajkumar Nallour Raveendran, Katelyn Tsang, Dilraj Tiwana, Amy Chow, Benjamin ThompsonAbstract:Collinear flanking stimuli can reduce the detectability of a Gabor target presented in Peripheral Vision. This phenomenon is called collinear lateral inhibition and it may contribute to crowding in Peripheral Vision. Perceptual learning can reduce collinear lateral inhibition in Peripheral Vision, however intensive training is required. Our aim was to assess whether modulation of collinear lateral inhibition can be achieved within a short time-frame using a single 20-minute session of primary visual cortex anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS). Thirteen observers with normal Vision performed a 2AFC contrast detection task with collinear flankers positioned at a distance of 2λ from the target (lateral inhibition) or 6λ (control condition). The stimuli were presented 6° to the left of a central cross and fixation was monitored with an infra-red eye tracker. Participants each completed two randomly sequenced, single-masked stimulation sessions; real anodal tDCS and sham tDCS. For the 2λ separation condition, a-tDCS induced a significant reduction in detection threshold (reduced lateral inhibition). Sham stimulation had no effect. No effects of a-tDCS were observed for the 6λ separation condition. This result lays the foundation for future work investigating whether a-tDCS may be useful as a visual rehabilitation tool for individuals with central Vision loss who are reliant on Peripheral Vision.
-
Peripheral Vision good for biological motion bad for signal noise segregation
Journal of Vision, 2007Co-Authors: Benjamin Thompson, Robert F. Hess, Bruce C Hansen, Nikolaus F TrojeAbstract:Biological motion perception, having both evolutionary and social importance, is performed by the human visual system with a high degree of sensitivity. It is unclear whether Peripheral Vision has access to the specialized neural systems underlying biological motion perception; however, given the motion component, one would expect Peripheral Vision to be, if not specialized, at least highly accurate in perceiving biological motion. Here we show that the periphery can indeed perceive biological motion. However, the periphery suffers from an inability to detect biological motion signals when they are embedded in dynamic visual noise. We suggest that this Peripheral deficit is not due to biological motion perception per se, but to signal/noise segregation.
-
Peripheral Vision good for biological motion bad for signal noise segregation
Journal of Vision, 2007Co-Authors: Benjamin Thompson, Robert F. Hess, Bruce C Hansen, Nikolaus F TrojeAbstract:Biological motion perception, having both evolutionary and social importance, is performed by the human visual system witha high degree of sensitivity. It is unclear whether Peripheral Vision has access to the specialized neural systems underlyingbiological motion perception; however, given the motion component, one would expect Peripheral Vision to be, if notspecialized, at least highly accurate in perceiving biological motion. Here we show that the periphery can indeed perceivebiological motion. However, the periphery suffers from an inability to detect biological motion signals when they areembedded in dynamic visual noise. We suggest that this Peripheral deficit is not due to biological motion perception per se,but to signal/noise segregation.Keywords: biological motion, Peripheral Vision, noise segregationCitation: Thompson, B., Hansen, B. C., Hess, R. F., & Troje, N. F. (2007). Peripheral Vision: Good for biological motion, badfor signal noise segregation? Journal of Vision, 7(10):12, 1–7, http://journalofVision.org/7/10/12/, doi:10.1167/7.10.12.
Robert F. Hess - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Peripheral Vision good for biological motion bad for signal noise segregation
Journal of Vision, 2007Co-Authors: Benjamin Thompson, Robert F. Hess, Bruce C Hansen, Nikolaus F TrojeAbstract:Biological motion perception, having both evolutionary and social importance, is performed by the human visual system with a high degree of sensitivity. It is unclear whether Peripheral Vision has access to the specialized neural systems underlying biological motion perception; however, given the motion component, one would expect Peripheral Vision to be, if not specialized, at least highly accurate in perceiving biological motion. Here we show that the periphery can indeed perceive biological motion. However, the periphery suffers from an inability to detect biological motion signals when they are embedded in dynamic visual noise. We suggest that this Peripheral deficit is not due to biological motion perception per se, but to signal/noise segregation.
-
Peripheral Vision good for biological motion bad for signal noise segregation
Journal of Vision, 2007Co-Authors: Benjamin Thompson, Robert F. Hess, Bruce C Hansen, Nikolaus F TrojeAbstract:Biological motion perception, having both evolutionary and social importance, is performed by the human visual system witha high degree of sensitivity. It is unclear whether Peripheral Vision has access to the specialized neural systems underlyingbiological motion perception; however, given the motion component, one would expect Peripheral Vision to be, if notspecialized, at least highly accurate in perceiving biological motion. Here we show that the periphery can indeed perceivebiological motion. However, the periphery suffers from an inability to detect biological motion signals when they areembedded in dynamic visual noise. We suggest that this Peripheral deficit is not due to biological motion perception per se,but to signal/noise segregation.Keywords: biological motion, Peripheral Vision, noise segregationCitation: Thompson, B., Hansen, B. C., Hess, R. F., & Troje, N. F. (2007). Peripheral Vision: Good for biological motion, badfor signal noise segregation? Journal of Vision, 7(10):12, 1–7, http://journalofVision.org/7/10/12/, doi:10.1167/7.10.12.
-
Post-receptoral undersampling in normal human Peripheral Vision.
Vision Research, 1990Co-Authors: Stephen J. Anderson, Robert F. HessAbstract:Abstract In human far Peripheral Vision, drifting stimuli of particular periodicities appear to move in the opposite direction from their true direction of motion. This “reverse motion illustion” is a consequence of spatial undersampling of the retinal image. The illusion occurs for spatial frequencies an order of magnitude lower than that expected on the basis of anatomical measurements of human photoreccptor density. We conclude that for naturally imaged stimuli the site of undersampling in far Peripheral Vision must be post-receptoral.
Miyoung Kwon - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
cortical reorganization of Peripheral Vision induced by simulated central Vision loss
The Journal of Neuroscience, 2019Co-Authors: Nihong Chen, Miyoung Kwon, Kilho Shin, Rachel Millin, Yongqian Song, Bosco S TjanAbstract:When one's central Vision is deprived, a spared part of the Peripheral retina acts as a pseudofovea for fixation. The neural mechanisms underlying this compensatory adjustment remain unclear. Here we report cortical reorganization induced by simulated central Vision loss. Human subjects of both sexes learned to place the target at an eccentric retinal locus outside their blocked visual field for object tracking. Before and after training, we measured visual crowding-a bottleneck of object identification in Peripheral Vision, using psychophysics and fMRI. We found that training led to an axis-specific reduction of crowding. The change of the crowding effect was reflected in the change of BOLD signal, as a release of cortical suppression in multiple visual areas starting as early as V1. Our findings suggest that the adult visual system is capable of reshaping its oculomotor control and sensory coding to adapt to impoverished visual input.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT By simulating central Vision loss in normally sighted adults, we found that oculomotor training not only induces PRL, but also facilitates form processing in Peripheral Vision. As subjects learned to place the target at an eccentric retinal locus, "visual crowding"-the detrimental effect of clutter on Peripheral object identification-was reduced. The reduction of the crowding effect was accompanied by a release of response suppression in the visual cortex. These findings indicate that the adult visual system is capable of reshaping the Peripheral Vision to adapt to central Vision loss.
-
Spatial-frequency cutoff requirements for pattern recognition in central and Peripheral Vision
Vision Research, 2011Co-Authors: Miyoung Kwon, Gordon E. LeggeAbstract:Abstract It is well known that object recognition requires spatial frequencies exceeding some critical cutoff value. People with central scotomas who rely on Peripheral Vision have substantial difficulty with reading and face recognition. Deficiencies of pattern recognition in Peripheral Vision, might result in higher cutoff requirements, and may contribute to the functional problems of people with central-field loss. Here we asked about differences in spatial-cutoff requirements in central and Peripheral Vision for letter and face recognition. The stimuli were the 26 letters of the English alphabet and 26 celebrity faces. Each image was blurred using a low-pass filter in the spatial frequency domain. Critical cutoffs (defined as the minimum low-pass filter cutoff yielding 80% accuracy) were obtained by measuring recognition accuracy as a function of cutoff frequency (in cycles per object). Our data showed that critical cutoffs increased from central to Peripheral Vision by 20% for letter recognition and by 50% for face recognition. We asked whether these differences could be accounted for by central/Peripheral differences in the contrast sensitivity function (CSF). We addressed this question by implementing an ideal-observer model which incorporates empirical CSF measurements and tested the model on letter and face recognition. The success of the model indicates that central/Peripheral differences in the cutoff requirements for letter and face recognition can be accounted for by the information content of the stimulus limited by the shape of the human CSF, combined with a source of internal noise and followed by an optimal decision rule.
-
training improves reading speed in Peripheral Vision is it due to attention
Journal of Vision, 2010Co-Authors: Miyoung Kwon, Gordon E. Legge, Joshua J GefrohAbstract:Previous research has shown that perceptual training in Peripheral Vision, using a letter-recognition task, increases reading speed and letter recognition (Chung, Legge, & Cheung, 2004). We tested the hypothesis that enhanced deployment of spatial attention to Peripheral Vision explains this training effect. Subjects were pre- and post-tested with 3 tasks at 10° above and below fixation—RSVP reading speed, trigram letter recognition (used to construct visual-span profiles), and deployment of spatial attention (measured as the benefit of a pre-cue for target position in a lexical-decision task). Groups of five normally sighted young adults received 4 days of trigram letter-recognition training in upper or lower visual fields, or central Vision. A control group received no training. Our measure of deployment of spatial attention revealed visual-field anisotropies; better deployment of attention in the lower field than the upper, and in the lower-right quadrant compared with the other three quadrants. All subject groups exhibited slight improvement in deployment of spatial attention to Peripheral Vision in the post-test, but this improvement was not correlated with training-related increases in reading speed and the size of visual-span profiles. Our results indicate that improved deployment of spatial attention to Peripheral Vision does not account for improved reading speed and letter recognition in Peripheral Vision.
Bruce C Hansen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Peripheral Vision good for biological motion bad for signal noise segregation
Journal of Vision, 2007Co-Authors: Benjamin Thompson, Robert F. Hess, Bruce C Hansen, Nikolaus F TrojeAbstract:Biological motion perception, having both evolutionary and social importance, is performed by the human visual system with a high degree of sensitivity. It is unclear whether Peripheral Vision has access to the specialized neural systems underlying biological motion perception; however, given the motion component, one would expect Peripheral Vision to be, if not specialized, at least highly accurate in perceiving biological motion. Here we show that the periphery can indeed perceive biological motion. However, the periphery suffers from an inability to detect biological motion signals when they are embedded in dynamic visual noise. We suggest that this Peripheral deficit is not due to biological motion perception per se, but to signal/noise segregation.
-
Peripheral Vision good for biological motion bad for signal noise segregation
Journal of Vision, 2007Co-Authors: Benjamin Thompson, Robert F. Hess, Bruce C Hansen, Nikolaus F TrojeAbstract:Biological motion perception, having both evolutionary and social importance, is performed by the human visual system witha high degree of sensitivity. It is unclear whether Peripheral Vision has access to the specialized neural systems underlyingbiological motion perception; however, given the motion component, one would expect Peripheral Vision to be, if notspecialized, at least highly accurate in perceiving biological motion. Here we show that the periphery can indeed perceivebiological motion. However, the periphery suffers from an inability to detect biological motion signals when they areembedded in dynamic visual noise. We suggest that this Peripheral deficit is not due to biological motion perception per se,but to signal/noise segregation.Keywords: biological motion, Peripheral Vision, noise segregationCitation: Thompson, B., Hansen, B. C., Hess, R. F., & Troje, N. F. (2007). Peripheral Vision: Good for biological motion, badfor signal noise segregation? Journal of Vision, 7(10):12, 1–7, http://journalofVision.org/7/10/12/, doi:10.1167/7.10.12.
