Foveal analysis and peripheral selection during active visual sampling.

Human vision is an active process in which information is sampled during brief periods of stable fixation in between gaze shifts. Foveal analysis serves to identify the currently fixated object and has to be coordinated with a peripheral selection process of the next fixation location. Models of visual search and scene perception typically focus on the latter, without considering foveal processing requirements. We developed a dual-task noise classification technique that enables identification of the information uptake for foveal analysis and peripheral selection within a single fixation. Human observers had to use foveal vision to extract visual feature information (orientation) from different locations for a psychophysical comparison. The selection of to-be-fixated locations was guided by a different feature (luminance contrast). We inserted noise in both visual features and identified the uptake of information by looking at correlations between the noise at different points in time and behavior. Our data show that foveal analysis and peripheral selection proceeded completely in parallel. Peripheral processing stopped some time before the onset of an eye movement, but foveal analysis continued during this period. Variations in the difficulty of foveal processing did not influence the uptake of peripheral information and the efficacy of peripheral selection, suggesting that foveal analysis and peripheral selection operated independently. These results provide important theoretical constraints on how to model target selection in conjunction with foveal object identification: in parallel and independently.

A functional role for trans-saccadic luminance differences.

In typical natural environments, the visual system receives different inputs in quick succession as gaze moves around. We examined whether local trans-saccadic differences in luminance, contrast, and orientation influenced perception and target selection in the eye movement system. Observers initially fixated a peripheral position in a preview display that consisted of four patterns. They subsequently made a saccade to the center of the configuration. During the movement, two of the preview patterns were eliminated, and a small change in the luminance contrast of the remaining patterns was introduced. Observers had to make a second saccade to the test patch with the greater luminance contrast relative to the background. During the second fixation, test patterns could be in the same retinotopic location as one of the preview patterns during the initial fixation (a retinotopic match) or at a retinotopic location that was empty during the preview epoch (a retinotopic onset). We consistently found a preference to fixate retinotopic onsets over retinotopically matched patterns, but only when the patterns were defined by a luminance difference. Direct measurement of perceived luminance showed that the visual response to retinotopically matched inputs was attenuated, possibly because of retinotopic adaptation. As a consequence, the visual system responds more strongly to trans-saccadic differences in local luminance. We argue that a trans-saccadic comparison of the local luminance at the same retinotopic location is a simple way of finding high spatial frequency edge information in the visual scene. This information is important for image segmentation and interpretation.

Estimating the growth of internal evidence guiding perceptual decisions.

Perceptual decision-making is thought to involve a gradual accrual of noisy evidence. Temporal integration of the evidence reduces the relative contribution of dynamic internal noise to the decision variable, thereby boosting its signal-to-noise ratio. We aimed to estimate the internal evidence guiding perceptual decisions over time, using a novel combination of external noise and the response signal methods. Observers performed orientation discrimination of patterns presented in external noise. We varied the contrast of the patterns and the delay at which observers were forced to signal their decision. Each test stimulus (patterns and noise sample) was presented twice. Across two experiments we varied the availability of the visual stimulus for processing. Observer model analyses of discrimination accuracy and response consistency to two passes of the same stimulus, suggested that there was very little growth in the internal evidence. The improvement in accuracy over time characterised by the speed-accuracy trade-off function predominantly reflected a decreasing proportion of non-visual decisions, or pure guesses. There was no advantage to having the visual patterns visible for longer than 80 ms, indicating that only the visual information in a short window after display onset was used to drive the decisions. The remarkable constancy of the internal evidence over time suggests that temporal integration of the sensory information was very limited. Alternatively, more extended integration of the evidence from memory could have taken place, provided that the dominant source of internal noise limiting performance occurs between-trials, which cannot be reduced by prolonged evidence integration.

Simultaneous adaptation to non-collinear retinal motion and smooth pursuit eye movement.

Simultaneously adapting to retinal motion and non-collinear pursuit eye movement produces a motion aftereffect (MAE) that moves in a different direction to either of the individual adapting motions. Mack, Hill and Kahn (1989, Perception, 18, 649-655) suggested that the MAE was determined by the perceived motion experienced during adaptation. We tested the perceived-motion hypothesis by having observers report perceived direction during simultaneous adaptation. For both central and peripheral retinal motion adaptation, perceived direction did not predict the direction of subsequent MAE. To explain the findings we propose that the MAE is based on the vector sum of two components, one corresponding to a retinal MAE opposite to the adapting retinal motion and the other corresponding to an extra-retina MAE opposite to the eye movement. A vector model of this component hypothesis showed that the MAE directions reported in our experiments were the result of an extra-retinal component that was substantially larger in magnitude than the retinal component when the adapting retinal motion was positioned centrally. However, when retinal adaptation was peripheral, the model suggested the magnitude of the components should be about the same. These predictions were tested in a final experiment that used a magnitude estimation technique. Contrary to the predictions, the results showed no interaction between type of adaptation (retinal or pursuit) and the location of adapting retinal motion. Possible reasons for the failure of component hypothesis to fully explain the data are discussed.