Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

, Volume 79, Issue 3, pp 850–862 | Cite as

Detecting distortions of peripherally presented letter stimuli under crowded conditions

  • Thomas S. A. Wallis
  • Saskia Tobias
  • Matthias Bethge
  • Felix A. Wichmann
Article

Abstract

When visual features in the periphery are close together they become difficult to recognize: something is present but it is unclear what. This is called “crowding”. Here we investigated sensitivity to features in highly familiar shapes (letters) by applying spatial distortions. In Experiment 1, observers detected which of four peripherally presented (8 deg of retinal eccentricity) target letters was distorted (spatial 4AFC). The letters were presented either isolated or surrounded by four undistorted flanking letters, and distorted with one of two types of distortion at a range of distortion frequencies and amplitudes. The bandpass noise distortion (“BPN”) technique causes spatial distortions in Cartesian space, whereas radial frequency distortion (“RF”) causes shifts in polar coordinates. Detecting distortions in target letters was more difficult in the presence of flanking letters, consistent with the effect of crowding. The BPN distortion type showed evidence of tuning, with sensitivity to distortions peaking at approximately 6.5 c/deg for unflanked letters. The presence of flanking letters causes this peak to rise to approximately 8.5 c/deg. In contrast to the tuning observed for BPN distortions, RF distortion sensitivity increased as the radial frequency of distortion increased. In a series of follow-up experiments, we found that sensitivity to distortions is reduced when flanking letters were also distorted, that this held when observers were required to report which target letter was undistorted, and that this held when flanker distortions were always detectable. The perception of geometric distortions in letter stimuli is impaired by visual crowding.

Keywords

2D shape and form Spatial vision Reading Distortion Metamorphopsia 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Designed the experiments: TSAW, ST, FAW, MB. Programmed the experiments: ST, TSAW. Collected the data: ST, TSAW. Analyzed the data: TSAW, ST. Wrote the paper: TSAW. Revised the paper: ST, FAW, MB. We thank Peter Bex and William Harrison for helpful comments on the manuscript.

Supplementary material

13414_2016_1245_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (944 kb)
(PDF 943 KB)

References

  1. Andriessen, J J, & Bouma, H (1975). Eccentric vision: Adverse interactions between line segments. Vision Research, 16(1), 71–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold, J B (2016). Ggthemes: Extra Themes, Scales and Geoms for ‘ggplot2’. (R package version 3.0., 3.Google Scholar
  3. Asher, M F, Tolhurst, D J, Troscianko, T, & Gilchrist, I (2013). Regional effects of clutter on human target detection performance. Journal of Vision, 13(5), 25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Auguie, B (2016). Gridextra: Miscellaneous functions for “grid” graphics. (r package version 2.2.1).Google Scholar
  5. Bernard, J B, & Chung, S T L (2011). The dependence of crowding on flanker complexity and target-flanker similarity. Journal of Vision, 11(8), 1.Google Scholar
  6. Bex, P J (2010). Sensitivity to spatial distortion in natural scenes. Journal of Vision, 10(2), 23.1–15. doi:10.1167/10.2.23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouma, H (1970). Interaction effects in parafoveal letter recognition. Nature, 226(5241), 177–178.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Brainard, D H (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 433–436.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Chakravarthi, R, & Pelli, D G (2011). The same binding in contour integration and crowding. Journal of Vision, 11(8).Google Scholar
  10. Chung, S T L, Legge, G E, & Tjan, B S (2002). Spatial-frequency characteristics of letter identification in central and peripheral vision. Vision Research, 42(18), 2137–2152.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Chung, S T L, Levi, D M, & Legge, G E (2001). Spatial-frequency and contrast properties of crowding. Vision Research, 41(14), 1833–1850.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Crossland, M, & Rubin, G (2007). The Amsler chart: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 91(3), 391–393. doi:10.1136/bjo.2006.095315.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Dakin, S C, & Baruch, N J (2009). Context influences contour integration. Journal of Vision, 9(2), 13–13. doi:10.1167/9.2.13.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Dakin, S C, Cass, J, Greenwood, J A, & Bex, P J (2010). Probabilistic, positional averaging predicts object-level crowding effects with letter-like stimuli. Journal of Vision, 10(10), 14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Dickinson, J E, Almeida, R A, Bell, J, & Badcock, D R (2010). Global shape aftereffects have a local substrate: a tilt aftereffect field. Journal of Vision, 10(13), 5. doi:10.1167/10.13.5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Dickinson, J E, Mighall, H K, Almeida, R A, Bell, J, & Badcock, D R (2012). Rapidly acquired shape and face aftereffects are retinotopic and local in origin. Vision Research, 65, 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2012.05.012.
  17. Estes, W K (1982). Similarity-related channel interactions in visual processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8(3), 353–382. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.8.3.353.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Glen, J C, & Dakin, S C (2013). Orientation-crowding within contours. Journal of Vision, 13(8), 14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Greenwood, J A, Bex, P J, & Dakin, S C (2009). Positional averaging explains crowding with letter-like stimuli. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(31), 13130–13135.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Greenwood, J A, Bex, P J, & Dakin, S C (2012). Crowding follows the binding of relative position and orientation. Journal of Vision, 12(3).Google Scholar
  21. Harrison, W J, & Bex, P J (2015). A unifying model of orientation crowding in peripheral vision. Current Biology, 25(24), 3213–3219. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2015.10.052.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Henderson, J M, Chanceaux, M, & Smith, T J (2009). The influence of clutter on real-world scene search: Evidence from search efficiency and eye movements. Journal of Vision, 9(1), 32–32. doi:10.1167/9.1.32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Herzog, M H, Sayim, B, Chicherov, V, & Manassi, M (2015). Crowding, grouping, and object recognition: A matter of appearance. Journal of Vision, 15(6).Google Scholar
  24. Hole, G J, George, P A, Eaves, K, & Rasek, A (2002). Effects of geometric distortions on face-recognition performance. Perception, 31(10), 1221–1240.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kingdom, F A, Field, D J, & Olmos, A (2007). Does spatial invariance result from insensitivity to change? Journal of Vision, 7(14), 11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kleiner, M, Brainard, D H, & Pelli, D G (2007). What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3? Perception, 36(ECVP Abstract Supplement).Google Scholar
  27. Kooi, F L, Toet, A, Tripathy, S P, & Levi, D M (1994). The effect of similarity and duration on spatial interaction in peripheral vision. Spatial Vision, 8(2), 255–279.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Kramer, D, & Fahle, M (1996). A simple mechanism for detecting low curvatures. Vision Research, 36(10), 1411–1419. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(95)00340-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Levi, D D M, Klein, S A, & Aitsebaomo, A P (1985). Vernier acuity, crowding and cortical magnification. Vision Research, 25(7), 963–977.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Livne, T, & Sagi, D (2007). Configuration influence on crowding. Journal of Vision, 7(2), 4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Livne, T, & Sagi, D (2010). How do flankers’ relations affect crowding? Journal of Vision, 10(3), 1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Manassi, M, Sayim, B, & Herzog, M H (2013). When crowding of crowding leads to uncrowding. Journal of Vision, 13(13), 10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. May, K A, & Hess, R F (2007). Ladder contours are undetectable in the periphery: a crowding effect? Journal of Vision, 7(13), 9. doi:10.1167/7.13.9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Morey, R D, & Rouder, J N. (2015). BayesFactor.Google Scholar
  35. Parkes, L, Lund, J, Angelucci, A, Solomon, J A, & Morgan, M J (2001). Compulsory averaging of crowded orientation signals in human vision. Nature Neuroscience, 4(7), 739–744.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Pelli, D G (1997). The videotoolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 437–442.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Pelli, D G, Burns, C W, Farell, B, & Moore-Page, D C (2006). Feature detection and letter identification. Vision Research, 46(28), 4646–4674. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2006.04.023.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Pelli, D G, Palomares, M, & Majaj, N J (2004). Crowding is unlike ordinary masking: Distinguishing feature integration from detection. Journal of Vision, 4, 1136–1169.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Core Development Team, R. (2016). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  40. Robol, V, Casco, C, & Dakin, S C (2012). The role of crowding in contextual influences on contour integration. Journal of Vision, 12(7), 3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Rosenholtz, R, Li, Y, & Nakano, L (2007). Measuring visual clutter. Journal of Vision, 7(2), 17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Rouder, J N, Morey, R D, Speckman, P L, & Province, J M (2012). Default Bayes factors for ANOVA designs. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56(5), 356–374. doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2012.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rovamo, J, Mäkelä, P., Näsänen, R., & Whitaker, D (1997). Detection of geometric image distortions at various eccentricities. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 38(5), 1029–1039.Google Scholar
  44. Saarela, T P, Sayim, B, Westheimer, G, & Herzog, M H (2009). Global stimulus configuration modulates crowding. Journal of Vision, 9(2), 5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Sayim, B, & Cavanagh, P. (2013). Grouping and crowding affect target appearance over different spatial scales: PLoS ONE.Google Scholar
  46. Schuchard, R A (1993). Validity and interpretation of Amsler grid reports. Archives of Ophthalmology, 111 (6), 776. 10.1001/archopht.1993.01090060064024.Google Scholar
  47. Schütt, H. H., Harmeling, S, Macke, J H, & Wichmann, F A (2016). Painfree and accurate Bayesian estimation of psychometric functions for (potentially) overdispersed data. Vision Research, 122, 105–123. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2016.02.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Sloan, L L (1959). New test charts for the measurement of visual acuity at far and near distances. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 48, 807–813.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Song, S, Levi, D M, & Pelli, D G (2014). A double dissociation of the acuity and crowding limits to letter identification, and the promise of improved visual screening. Journal of Vision, 14(5), 3, 1–37. doi:10.1167/14.5.3.doi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Spence, M L, Storrs, K R, & Arnold, D H (2014). Why the long face? the importance of vertical image structure for biological ”barcodes” underlying face recognition. Journal of Vision, 14(8), 25–25. doi:10.1167/14.8.25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Stojanoski, B, & Cusack, R (2014). Time to wave good-bye to phase scrambling: Creating controlled scrambled images using diffeomorphic transformations. Journal of Vision, 14(12), 6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Strasburger, H (2014). Dancing letters and ticks that buzz around aimlessly: on the origin of crowding. Perception, 43(9), 963–976. doi:10.1068/p7726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Suchow, J W, & Pelli, D G. (2012). Learning to detect and combine the features of an object. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.Google Scholar
  54. Thaler, L, Schütz, A. C., Goodale, M A, & Gegenfurtner, K R (2013). What is the best fixation target? the effect of target shape on stability of fixational eye movements. Vision Research, 76, 31–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Toet, A, & Levi, D M (1992). The two-dimensional shape of spatial interaction zones in the parafovea. Vision Research, 32(7), 1349–1357.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Wickham, H. (2009). Ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wickham, H (2011). The split-apply-combine strategy for data analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 40(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wickham, H, & Francois, R (2016). Dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. (R package version 0.5.0).Google Scholar
  59. Wiecek, E, Dakin, S C, & Bex, P (2014). Metamorphopsia and letter recognition. Journal of Vision, 14 (14), 1. doi:10.1167/14.14.1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. Wiecek, E, Lashkari, K, Dakin, S C, & Bex, P (2015). Metamorphopsia and interocular suppression in monocular and binocular maculopathy. Acta Ophthalmologica, 93(4), e318–e320. doi:10.1111/aos.12559.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilkinson, F, Wilson, H R, & Ellemberg, D (1997). Lateral interactions in peripherally viewed texture arrays. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 14(9), 2057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wilkinson, F, Wilson, H R, & Habak, C (1998). Detection and recognition of radial frequency patterns. Vision Research, 38(22), 3555–3568.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Xie, Y (2013). Knitr: A comprehensive tool for reproducible research in R. BT - Implementing Reproducible Computational. In V. Stodden, F. Leisch, & R. D. Peng (Eds.) Implementing Reproducible Computational Research: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
  64. Xie, Y. (2015). Dynamic documents with r and knitr, 2nd ed.: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas S. A. Wallis
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Saskia Tobias
    • 1
  • Matthias Bethge
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Felix A. Wichmann
    • 1
    • 3
    • 6
  1. 1.Neural Information Processing Group, Faculty of ScienceEberhard Karls Universität TübingenTübingenGermany
  2. 2.Werner Reichardt Center for Integrative NeuroscienceEberhard Karls Universität TübingenTübingenGermany
  3. 3.Bernstein Center for Computational NeuroscienceTübingenGermany
  4. 4.Institute for Theoretical PhysicsEberhard Karls Universität TübingenTübingenGermany
  5. 5.Max Planck Institute for Biological CyberneticsTübingenGermany
  6. 6.Empirical Inference DepartmentMax Planck Institute for Intelligent SystemsTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations