Perception

The visual system is known to contain hard-wired mechanisms that compare the values of a given stimulus attribute at adjacent positions in the visual field; but how are comparisons performed when the stimuli are not adjacent? We ask empirically how well a human observer can compare two stimuli that are separated in the visual field. For the stimulus attributes of spatial frequency, contrast, and orientation, we have measured discrimination thresholds as a function of the spatial separation of the discriminanda. The three attributes were studied in separate experiments, but in all cases the target stimuli were briefly presented Gabor patches. The Gabor patches lay on an imaginary circle, which was centred on the fixation point and had a radius of 5 deg of visual angle. Our psychophysical procedures were designed to ensure that the subject actively compared the two stimuli on each presentation, rather than referring just one stimulus to a stored template or criterion. For the cases of spatial frequency and contrast, there was no systematic effect of spatial separation up to 10 deg. We conclude that the subject's judgment does not depend on discontinuity detectors in the early visual system but on more central codes that represent the two stimuli individually. In the case of orientation discrimination, two naïve subjects performed as in the cases of spatial frequency and contrast; but two highly trained subjects showed a systematic increase of threshold with spatial separation, suggesting that they were exploiting a distal mechanism designed to detect the parallelism or non-parallelism of contours.

The same-sign hypothesis suggests that only those edges in the two retinal images whose luminance gradients have the same sign, known as same-sign edges, can be stereoscopically fused to generate a perception of depth. If true, one would expect that the magnitude of the depth induced by an opposite-luminance stereogram (eg one where the figure in one stereo half-image is black and the figure in the other is white) should be determined by the disparity of the same-sign edges. Despite the considerable work on the same-sign hypothesis this prediction has yet to be verified. Here we confirm this prediction for a particular opposite-luminance stereogram and discuss possible reasons why it is not true for opposite-luminance stereograms that are presented briefly or where each stereo half-image contains many elements.

Visual illusions and perceptual grouping phenomena offer an invaluable tool for probing the computational mechanism of low-level visual processing. Some illusions, like the Kanizsa figure, reveal illusory contours that form edges collinear with the inducing stimulus. This kind of illusory contour has been modeled by neural network models by way of cells equipped with elongated spatial receptive fields designed to detect and complete the collinear alignment. There are, however, other illusory groupings which are not so easy to account for in neural network terms. The Ehrenstein illusion exhibits an illusory contour that forms a contour orthogonal to the stimulus instead of collinear with it. Other perceptual grouping effects reveal illusory contours that exhibit a sharp corner or vertex, and still others take the form of vertices defined by the intersection of three, four, or more illusory contours that meet at a point. A direct extension of the collinear completion models to account for these phenomena tends towards a combinatorial explosion, because it would suggest cells with specialized receptive fields configured to perform each of those completion types, each of which would have to be replicated at every location and every orientation across the visual field. These phenomena therefore challenge the adequacy of the neural network approach to account for these diverse perceptual phenomena.

I have proposed elsewhere an alternative paradigm of neurocomputation in the harmonic resonance theory (Lehar 1999, see website), whereby pattern recognition and completion are performed by spatial standing waves across the neural substrate. The standing waves perform a computational function analogous to that of the spatial receptive fields of the neural network approach, except that, unlike that paradigm, a single resonance mechanism performs a function equivalent to a whole array of spatial receptive fields of different spatial configurations and of different orientations, and thereby avoids the combinatorial explosion inherent in the older paradigm. The present paper presents the directional harmonic model, a more specific development of the harmonic resonance theory, designed to account for specific perceptual grouping phenomena. Computer simulations of the directional harmonic model show that it can account for collinear contours as observed in the Kanizsa figure, orthogonal contours as seen in the Ehrenstein illusion, and a number of illusory vertex percepts composed of two, three, or more illusory contours that meet in a variety of configurations.

Watson and Humphreys (1997 Psychological Review 104 90 – 122) showed that when searching for a target, observers can ignore a previewed set of distractors (other items), effectively decreasing the number of relevant items in a difficult search display and thus speeding performance (‘visual marking’). Other researchers have more recently investigated visual marking for continuously moving items, finding that shared features, and preserved inter-item spatial relationships, are helpful. Here, we tested whether visual marking occurs for a set of initial items that moves in one discrete jump (preserving shared features and inter-item spatial relationships). Marking did not occur in these displays, and we interpret this result in the context of previous research on visual marking.

In contrast to other functions which are suppressed during saccades, saccadic suppression of displacement (SSD—a decrease in sensitivity to visual displacements during saccades) has often been considered to be due to efferent processes rather than to visual masking. The aim of this study was to explicitly assess the importance of visual conditions in SSD. In two experiments, a small computer-generated target made random horizontal jumps. An infrared eye tracker was used to detect the saccade toward the new position, triggering a smaller centripetal displacement of the target. Subjects reported awareness of these intrasaccadic displacements by pressing a key. In the first experiment, the task was performed in both a well-lit environment and in darkness. In the second experiment these conditions were replicated and additional factors such as the contrast of the background and the effect of moving the target spot alone or the target plus the entire background were investigated. Unlike other forms of saccadic suppression, SSD was stronger in the dark, although subjects also had a greater bias to report detections in that condition. Other background manipulations had no effect. The effect of ambient lighting on SSD is small and subtle. Effects of other background manipulations may be overridden by the focusing of attention on a small moving target.

Attentional effects on self-motion perception (vection) were examined by using a large display in which vertical stripes containing upward or downward moving dots were interleaved to balance the total motion energy for the two directions. The dots moving in the same direction had the same colour, and subjects were asked to attend to one of the two colours. Vection was perceived in the direction opposite to that of non-attended motion. This indicates that non-attended visual motion dominates vection. The attentional effect was then compared with effects of relative depth. Clear attentional effects were again found when there was no relative depth between dots moving in opposite directions, but the effect of depth was much stronger for stimuli with a relative depth. Vection was mainly determined by motion in the far depth plane, although some attentional effects were evident even in this case. These results indicate that attentional modulation for vection exists, but that it is overridden when there is a relative depth between the two motion components.

The localisation time of visual targets within and beyond the field of view and the relative timing of the onsets of eye and head movements were examined in deaf and hearing children of two age groups: 5 – 7 years and 10 – 12 years. Compared to their hearing peers, the deaf children showed more often a mode of eye – head coordination in which the head leads the eye. The discrepancy between the onsets of eye and head movements were greater for the younger than for the older groups. Furthermore, the deaf children took more time than the hearing children to localise the targets; especially the young deaf differed from their hearing contemporaries. These findings support the view that during development the differences in visual search between deaf and hearing children decrease. The results are discussed in the context of a distinction between representational and sensorimotor control of eye – head responses.

Blindfolded sighted, congenitally blind, late-blind, and very-low-vision subjects were tested on a tangible version of the embedded-figures test. The results of ANOVAs on accuracy measures yielded superior performance by the very-low-vision and late-blind subjects compared with the blindfolded sighted and congenitally blind participants. Accuracy of the congenitally blind subjects was similar to that of the blindfolded sighted participants. However, all groups of blind subjects were significantly faster than the blindfolded sighted subjects. It is suggested that experience with pictures combined with haptic skill aid perceptual selectivity in touch.

Editorial: Significance

In the editorial to volume 32, number 2 of Perception, Richard Gregory refers several times to Benjamin Levit (pages 128 and 129). Apologies to Benjamin Libet for this strange error of misspelling his most distinguished name.

Review of Perceptual Learning

In the review of Perceptual Learning in the same issue (page 255), the name of one of the editors is misspelt M Fhale. Our sincere apologies to Manfred Fahle!