Texture discrimination asymmetries across the visual field.

Texture discrimination is sometimes asymmetrical; texture A embedded in texture B is more easily detected than texture B embedded in texture A. Furthermore, texture discrimination often improves as the disparate texture is moved into the periphery; this has been referred to as the central performance drop (CPD). The interaction of these interesting and counter-intuitive aspects of texture discrimination has received very little attention. Using four stimulus pattern pairs that were previously shown to elicit asymmetrical texture discrimination, we examined texture discrimination asymmetries as a function of eccentricity. We found three patterns of results; (i) both texture arrangements (A in B, and B in A) elicit a CPD but do not show an asymmetry, (ii) both texture arrangements elicit a monotonic decrease in performance with eccentricity (i.e. no CPD) but an asymmetry is seen at each eccentricity and (iii) discrimination asymmetries are minimal at fixation and in the far periphery and maximal about 3 degrees from fixation with a CPD generally shown for the 'stronger' member of the pair. These results emphasize that one cannot talk about the 'discriminability' of a particular texture pair without reference to the arrangement of the two textures and the eccentricity of presentation.

Backward masking and the central performance drop.

Kehrer [Spatial Vision 2 (1987) 247] found that texture discrimination performance sometimes peaks in the parafovea rather than at the fovea, and he referred to this phenomenon as the central performance drop (CPD). Kehrer used a backward mask to limit performance and Morikawa [Vision Res. 40 (2000) 3517] argued that in some cases the temporal aspects of the backward mask may be critical to the emergence of the CPD. In one experiment Morikawa showed that the CPD does not emerge when a simultaneous noise-mask (different from the mask used by Kehrer) is used to limit performance. In another experiment Morikawa showed that unmasked texture displays comprising short lines do not elicit the CPD. In both cases, changes in the temporal aspects of the texture displays were accompanied by changes in the spatial structure of the mask or stimulus. For the spatio-temporal theory of the CPD to be sustained one would have to show that noise masks elicit a CPD when used as backward masks and that the short-line textures elicit a CPD when followed by backward masks. Our evidence provides little if any support for either of these predictions. Furthermore, an analysis of a simple filter-rectify-filter model of texture segmentation shows that a greatly attenuated CPD is to be expected when a noise mask is used as a source of spatial noise.

Backward masking is not required to elicit the central performance drop.

In some circumstances, texture discrimination performance peaks in the parafovea rather than at the fovea. Kehrer (1987) referred to this phenomenon as the central performance drop (CPD). In most studies showing the CPD, task performance has been limited by a backward mask. Morikawa (2000) has argued that in these studies the backward mask was critical to the emergence of the CPD. In three studies we use textures comprising left and right oblique line segments and limit performance by manipulating the orientation variability within the foreground and background textures. Using this method we demonstrate that significant CPDs emerge whether or not there is a backward mask. We conclude that in past studies of the CPD the backward mask functioned primarily as a source of spatial noise and that its temporal relation to the texture display is not critical to the emergence of the CPD.