Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

, Volume 81, Issue 3, pp 738–751 | Cite as

Dynamic distractor environments reveal classic visual field anisotropies for judgments of temporal order

  • John CassEmail author
  • Erik Van der Burg


Numerous studies have shown that visual performance critically depends on the stimulus’ projected retinal location. For example, performance tends to be better along the horizontal relative to the vertical meridian (lateral anisotropy). Another case is the so-called upper-lower anisotropy, whereby performance is better in the upper relative to the lower hemifield. This study investigates whether temporal order judgments (TOJs) are subject to these visual field constraints. In Experiments 1 and 2, subjects reported the temporal order of two disks located along the horizontal or vertical meridians. Each target disk was surrounded by 10 black and white distractor disks, whose polarity remained unchanged (static condition) or reversed throughout the trial (dynamic condition). Results indicate that the mere presence of dynamic distractors elevated thresholds by more than a factor of four and that this elevation was particularly pronounced along the vertical meridian, evidencing the lateral anisotropy. In Experiment 3, thresholds were compared in upper, lower, left, and right visual hemifields. Results show that the threshold elevation caused by dynamic distractors was greatest in the upper visual field, demonstrating an upper-lower anisotropy. Critically, these anisotropies were evident exclusively in dynamic distractor conditions suggesting that distinct processes govern TOJ performance under these different contextual conditions. We propose that whereas standard TOJs are processed by fast low-order motion mechanisms, the presence of dynamic distractors mask these low-order motion signals, forcing observers to rely more heavily on more sluggish higher order motion processes.


Temporal order Apparent motion Attention 



  1. Abrams, J., Nizam, A., & Carrasco, M. (2012). Isoeccentric locations are not equivalent: The extent of the vertical meridian asymmetry. Vision Research, 52(1), 70–78. Google Scholar
  2. Aghdaee, S. M., & Cavanagh, P. (2007). Temporal limits of long-range phase discrimination across the visual field. Vision Research, 47(16), 2156–2163. Google Scholar
  3. Cameron, E. L., Tai, J. C., & Carrasco, M. (2002). Covert attention affects the psychometric function of contrast sensitivity. Vision Research, 42(8), 949–967.Google Scholar
  4. Carrasco, M., Evert, D. L., Chang, I., & Katz, S. M. (1995). The eccentricity effect: Target eccentricity affects performance on conjunction searches. Perception & Psychophysics, 57(8), 1241–1261.Google Scholar
  5. Carrasco, M., & Frieder, K. S. (1997). Cortical magnification neutralizes the eccentricity effect in visual search. Vision Research, 37(1), 63–82.Google Scholar
  6. Carrasco, M., Giordano, A. M., & McElree, B. (2004). Temporal performance fields: Visual and attentional factors. Vision Research, 44(12), 1351–1365. Google Scholar
  7. Carrasco, M., Talgar, C. P., & Cameron, E. L. (2001). Characterizing visual performance fields: Effects of transient covert attention, spatial frequency, eccentricity, task and set size. Spatial Vision, 15(1), 61–75.Google Scholar
  8. Cass, J., & Van der Burg, E. (2014). Remote temporal camouflage: Contextual flicker disrupts perceived visual temporal order. Vision Research, 103, 92–100. Google Scholar
  9. Chaikin, J. D., Corbin, H. H., & Volkmann, J. (1962). Mapping a field of short-time visual search. Science, 138(3547), 1327–1328.Google Scholar
  10. Corbett, J. E., & Carrasco, M. (2011). Visual performance fields: Frames of reference. PLOS ONE, 6(9), e24470. Google Scholar
  11. Curcio, C. A., & Allen, K. A. (1990). Topography of ganglion cells in human retina. The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 300(1), 5–25. Google Scholar
  12. de Lange, H. (1952). Experiments on flicker and some calculations on an electrical analogue of the foveal systems. Physica, 18, 935–950.Google Scholar
  13. de Lange, H. (1958). Research into the dynamic nature of the human fovea-cortex systems with intermittent and modulated light. I. Attenuation characteristics with white and colored light. Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, 48(11), 777–784.Google Scholar
  14. Forte, J., Hogben, J. H., & Ross, J. (1999). Spatial limitations of temporal segmentation. Vision Research, 39(24), 4052–4061.Google Scholar
  15. Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., & Underwood, G. (2008). Turning the world around: Patterns in saccade direction vary with picture orientation. Vision Research, 48(17), 1777–1790. Google Scholar
  16. Golla, H., Ignashchenkova, A., Haarmeier, T., & Thier, P. (2004). Improvement of visual acuity by spatial cueing: A comparative study in human and non-human primates. Vision Research, 44(13), 1589–1600. Google Scholar
  17. He, S., Cavanagh, P., & Intriligator, J. (1996). Attentional resolution and the locus of visual awareness. Nature, 383(6598), 334–337. Google Scholar
  18. He, S., Cavanagh, P., & Intriligator, J. (1997). Attentional resolution. Trends in Cognitive Science, 1(3), 115–121. Google Scholar
  19. Holcombe, A. O. (2009). Seeing slow and seeing fast: Two limits on perception. Trends in Cognitive Science, 13(5), 216–221. Google Scholar
  20. Intriligator, J., & Cavanagh, P. (2001). The spatial resolution of visual attention. Cognitive Psychology, 43(3), 171–216. Google Scholar
  21. Kristjansson, A., & Sigurdardottir, H. M. (2008). On the benefits of transient attention across the visual field. Perception, 37(5), 747–764. Google Scholar
  22. Levi, D. M., & Waugh, S. J. (1994). Spatial scale shifts in peripheral vernier acuity. Vision Research, 34(17), 2215–2238.Google Scholar
  23. Lim, A., & Sinnett, S. (2012). Reexamining visual orientation anisotropies: A bias towards simple horizontal stimuli on temporal order judgments. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  24. Maruya, K., Holcombe, A. O., & Nishida, S. (2013). Rapid encoding of relationships between spatially remote motion signals. Journal of Vision, 13(2), 4. Google Scholar
  25. Olivers, C. N., Awh, E., & Van der Burg, E. (2016). The capacity to detect synchronous audiovisual events is severely limited: Evidence from mixture modeling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(12), 2115–2124. Google Scholar
  26. Perry, V. H., & Cowey, A. (1985). The ganglion cell and cone distributions in the monkey’s retina: Implications for central magnification factors. Vision Research, 25(12), 1795–1810.Google Scholar
  27. Raninen, A., & Rovamo, J. (1997). Flicker sensitivity as a function of eccentricity. Perception, 26(1 Suppl), 327–327.Google Scholar
  28. Rijsdijk, J. P., Kroon, J. N., & van der Wildt, G. J. (1980). Contrast sensitivity as a function of position on the retina. Vision Research, 20(3), 235–241.Google Scholar
  29. Roberts, M., Cymerman, R., Smith, R. T., Kiorpes, L., & Carrasco, M. (2016). Covert spatial attention is functionally intact in amblyopic human adults. Journal of Vision, 16(15), 30. Google Scholar
  30. Rodríguez-Sánchez, A., Fallah, M., & Leonardis, A. (2016). Hierarchical object representations in the visual cortex and computer vision. Frontiers in Computation Neuroscience.
  31. Rogers-Ramachandran, D. C., & Ramachandran, V. S. (1998). Psychophysical evidence for boundary and surface systems in human vision. Vision Research, 38(1), 71–77.Google Scholar
  32. Rovamo, J., & Raninen, A. (1984). Critical flicker frequency and M-scaling of stimulus size and retinal illuminance. Vision Research, 24(10), 1127–1131.Google Scholar
  33. Seiple, W., Holopigian, K., Szlyk, J. P., & Wu, C. (2004). Multidimensional visual field maps: Relationships among local psychophysical and local electrophysiological measures. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 41(3A), 359–372.Google Scholar
  34. Spence, C., & Parise, C. (2010). Prior-entry: A review. Conscious Cognition, 19(1), 364–379. Google Scholar
  35. Talbot, D., Van der Burg, E., & Cass, J. (2017). Stereoscopic segmentation cues improve visual timing performance in spatiotemporally cluttered environments. i-perception, 8(2), 2041669517699222. Google Scholar
  36. Talgar, C. P., & Carrasco, M. (2002). Vertical meridian asymmetry in spatial resolution: Visual and attentional factors. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 714–722.Google Scholar
  37. Tyler, C. W. (1987). Analysis of visual modulation sensitivity. III. Meridional variations in peripheral flicker sensitivity. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 4(8), 1612–1619.Google Scholar
  38. Van der Burg, E., Awh, E., & Olivers, C. N. (2013). The capacity of audiovisual integration is limited to one item. Psychological Science, 24(3), 345–351. Google Scholar
  39. Virsu, V., & Rovamo, J. (1979). Visual resolution, contrast sensitivity, and the cortical magnification factor. Experimental Brain Research, 37(3), 475–494.Google Scholar
  40. Westheimer, G. (1983). Temporal order detection for foveal and peripheral visual stimuli. Vision Research, 23(8), 759–763.Google Scholar
  41. Yasuma, T., Miyakawa, N., & Yamazaki, J. (1986). Clinical application of time-dependent perimetry: 1. Results in normal subjects. Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology, 30(3), 330–337.Google Scholar
  42. Yeshurun, Y., & Carrasco, M. (1999). Spatial attention improves performance in spatial resolution tasks. Vision Research, 39(2), 293–306.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social Sciences & PsychologyWestern Sydney University - Bankstown CampusMilperraAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Experimental & Applied PsychologyVrije UniversiteitAmsterdamNetherlands
  3. 3.School of PsychologyUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations