Limits...
Face or building superiority in peripheral vision reversed by task requirements.

Jebara N, Pins D, Despretz P, Boucart M - Adv Cogn Psychol (2009)

Bottom Line: Peripheral vision has been the topic of few studies compared with central vision.Our results showed that buildings were better judged as identical or familiar in periphery whilst faces were better categorised.We conclude that this superiority for a given stimulus in peripheral vision results (a) from the available information, which depends on the decrease of resolution with eccentricity, and (b) from the useful information, which depends on both the task and the semantic category.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Laboratoire de Neurosciences Fonctionnelles et Pathologies, CNCNRS, Université Lille Nord de France, CHCHRU Lille, Lille, France.

ABSTRACT
Peripheral vision has been the topic of few studies compared with central vision. Nevertheless, given that visual information covers all the visual field and that relevant information can originate from highly eccentric positions, the understanding of peripheral vision abilities for object perception seems essential. The poorer resolution of peripheral vision would first suggest that objects requiring large-scale feature integration such as buildings would be better processed than objects requiring finer analysis such as faces. Nevertheless, task requirements also determine the information (coarse or fine) necessary for a given object to be processed. We therefore investigated how task and eccentricity modulate object processing in peripheral vision. Three experiments were carried out requiring finer or coarser information processing of faces and buildings presented in central and peripheral vision. Our results showed that buildings were better judged as identical or familiar in periphery whilst faces were better categorised. We conclude that this superiority for a given stimulus in peripheral vision results (a) from the available information, which depends on the decrease of resolution with eccentricity, and (b) from the useful information, which depends on both the task and the semantic category.

No MeSH data available.


Examples of stimuli used in the familiarity judgement task.								Participants had to decide whether the stimulus was known or								unknown. The different semantic categories were presented in								different blocks. A: Faces (the first face is unknown and the second								was a French celebrity, Coluche). B: Buildings (the first building								is a historic monument in Paris, l’Arc de Triomphe, and the second								is unknown).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2865003&req=5

Figure 5: Examples of stimuli used in the familiarity judgement task. Participants had to decide whether the stimulus was known or unknown. The different semantic categories were presented in different blocks. A: Faces (the first face is unknown and the second was a French celebrity, Coluche). B: Buildings (the first building is a historic monument in Paris, l’Arc de Triomphe, and the second is unknown).

Mentions: For each trial, a single stimulus was randomly displayed left (50% of the trials) or right of fixation (see Figure 5). For each semantic category, half of the “known” and “unknown” photographs appeared on the left side, the other half on the right side. The experiment was divided into two blocks of 112 trials each. In one block, faces were displayed. In the other, buildings were displayed. Each photograph was presented twice in one block. The presentation order of the two conditions was counterbalanced across participants.


Face or building superiority in peripheral vision reversed by task requirements.

Jebara N, Pins D, Despretz P, Boucart M - Adv Cogn Psychol (2009)

Examples of stimuli used in the familiarity judgement task.								Participants had to decide whether the stimulus was known or								unknown. The different semantic categories were presented in								different blocks. A: Faces (the first face is unknown and the second								was a French celebrity, Coluche). B: Buildings (the first building								is a historic monument in Paris, l’Arc de Triomphe, and the second								is unknown).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2865003&req=5

Figure 5: Examples of stimuli used in the familiarity judgement task. Participants had to decide whether the stimulus was known or unknown. The different semantic categories were presented in different blocks. A: Faces (the first face is unknown and the second was a French celebrity, Coluche). B: Buildings (the first building is a historic monument in Paris, l’Arc de Triomphe, and the second is unknown).
Mentions: For each trial, a single stimulus was randomly displayed left (50% of the trials) or right of fixation (see Figure 5). For each semantic category, half of the “known” and “unknown” photographs appeared on the left side, the other half on the right side. The experiment was divided into two blocks of 112 trials each. In one block, faces were displayed. In the other, buildings were displayed. Each photograph was presented twice in one block. The presentation order of the two conditions was counterbalanced across participants.

Bottom Line: Peripheral vision has been the topic of few studies compared with central vision.Our results showed that buildings were better judged as identical or familiar in periphery whilst faces were better categorised.We conclude that this superiority for a given stimulus in peripheral vision results (a) from the available information, which depends on the decrease of resolution with eccentricity, and (b) from the useful information, which depends on both the task and the semantic category.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Laboratoire de Neurosciences Fonctionnelles et Pathologies, CNCNRS, Université Lille Nord de France, CHCHRU Lille, Lille, France.

ABSTRACT
Peripheral vision has been the topic of few studies compared with central vision. Nevertheless, given that visual information covers all the visual field and that relevant information can originate from highly eccentric positions, the understanding of peripheral vision abilities for object perception seems essential. The poorer resolution of peripheral vision would first suggest that objects requiring large-scale feature integration such as buildings would be better processed than objects requiring finer analysis such as faces. Nevertheless, task requirements also determine the information (coarse or fine) necessary for a given object to be processed. We therefore investigated how task and eccentricity modulate object processing in peripheral vision. Three experiments were carried out requiring finer or coarser information processing of faces and buildings presented in central and peripheral vision. Our results showed that buildings were better judged as identical or familiar in periphery whilst faces were better categorised. We conclude that this superiority for a given stimulus in peripheral vision results (a) from the available information, which depends on the decrease of resolution with eccentricity, and (b) from the useful information, which depends on both the task and the semantic category.

No MeSH data available.