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.


A: Percentage of correct categorisation. B: Response times (RTs, +/-							standard errors) for faces and buildings in the categorisation task as a							function of eccentricity. Performances were higher for faces than for							buildings in peripheral vision.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Figure 8: A: Percentage of correct categorisation. B: Response times (RTs, +/- standard errors) for faces and buildings in the categorisation task as a function of eccentricity. Performances were higher for faces than for buildings in peripheral vision.

Mentions: Data are presented in Figure 8. ANOVAs using STATISTICA 7.0 were conducted on the percentage of correct categorisation (PC) and RTs including both “face” or “building” and “no face” or “no building” responses, with the same factors as in Experiment 2. Trials in which eye movements were recorded were discarded (on average less than 7.3% of the trials). As our data did not respect the assumption of variance homogeneity between eccentricities, the transformations used in the two previous experiments were applied to these new data. Levene’s test (STATISTICA 7) showed that after transformations the variance homogeneity between eccentricities was restored; PC: faces, F < 1, ns; buildings, F(3, 56) = 1.3, ns; RTs: faces, F(3, 56) = 1.6, ns; buildings, F(3, 56) = 1.7, ns. Therefore, conditions for performing an ANOVA were attained.


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

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

A: Percentage of correct categorisation. B: Response times (RTs, +/-							standard errors) for faces and buildings in the categorisation task as a							function of eccentricity. Performances were higher for faces than for							buildings in peripheral vision.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Figure 8: A: Percentage of correct categorisation. B: Response times (RTs, +/- standard errors) for faces and buildings in the categorisation task as a function of eccentricity. Performances were higher for faces than for buildings in peripheral vision.
Mentions: Data are presented in Figure 8. ANOVAs using STATISTICA 7.0 were conducted on the percentage of correct categorisation (PC) and RTs including both “face” or “building” and “no face” or “no building” responses, with the same factors as in Experiment 2. Trials in which eye movements were recorded were discarded (on average less than 7.3% of the trials). As our data did not respect the assumption of variance homogeneity between eccentricities, the transformations used in the two previous experiments were applied to these new data. Levene’s test (STATISTICA 7) showed that after transformations the variance homogeneity between eccentricities was restored; PC: faces, F < 1, ns; buildings, F(3, 56) = 1.3, ns; RTs: faces, F(3, 56) = 1.6, ns; buildings, F(3, 56) = 1.7, ns. Therefore, conditions for performing an ANOVA were attained.

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.