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.


Percentage of correct categorisation as a function of eccentricity for							faces compared with objects with identical (round) or different							(angular) shapes and for buildings compared with objects with identical							(angular) or different (round) shapes. At large eccentricities,							performances were lower when faces or buildings had to be compared with							objects with similar global shape.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Figure 9: Percentage of correct categorisation as a function of eccentricity for faces compared with objects with identical (round) or different (angular) shapes and for buildings compared with objects with identical (angular) or different (round) shapes. At large eccentricities, performances were lower when faces or buildings had to be compared with objects with similar global shape.

Mentions: Faces have round shapes, whereas buildings tend to have angular shapes with straight lines and angles. Additional analyses (see Figure 9) showed that the categorisation was more difficult when both stimuli in a pair had the same global shape (either angular or round) compared with stimuli which had different global shapes, F(1, 56) = 33.0, p < .001. Thus, when faces were presented in pairs with round objects (e.g., apple) rather than with angular objects, it was more difficult to categorise faces, F(1, 56) = 7.1, p < .05. In the same way, when buildings were presented in pairs with angular objects rather than with round objects, it was more difficult to categorise buildings; F(1, 56) = 22.3, p < .001. A significant interaction between shape similarity and eccentricity was observed; F(3, 56) = 3.6, p < .05. This interaction was only significant for buildings; F(3, 56) = 2.8, p < .05. Whereas no significant effect of shape similarity was observed in central vision for buildings; F(1, 56) < 1, ns; accuracy was significantly higher when buildings were compared with round objects than with angular objects in peripheral vision; 20°: F(1, 56) = 4.2, p < .05; 45°: F(1, 56) = 4.0, p < .05; 60°: F(1, 56) = 22.0, p < .001. For faces, the shape similarity effect was only significant at 60° eccentricity: Accuracy was higher when faces were compared with angular objects rather than with round objects at 60°; F(1, 56) = 6.8, p < .05. Moreover, even when both stimuli in a pair had the same global shape, faces were significantly better categorised than buildings in peripheral vision; 6°: F(1, 56) = 0.2, ns; 20°: F(1, 56) = 17.2, p < .001; 45°: F(1, 56) = 19.6, p < .001; 60°: F(1, 56) = 40.9, p < .001.


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

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

Percentage of correct categorisation as a function of eccentricity for							faces compared with objects with identical (round) or different							(angular) shapes and for buildings compared with objects with identical							(angular) or different (round) shapes. At large eccentricities,							performances were lower when faces or buildings had to be compared with							objects with similar global shape.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Figure 9: Percentage of correct categorisation as a function of eccentricity for faces compared with objects with identical (round) or different (angular) shapes and for buildings compared with objects with identical (angular) or different (round) shapes. At large eccentricities, performances were lower when faces or buildings had to be compared with objects with similar global shape.
Mentions: Faces have round shapes, whereas buildings tend to have angular shapes with straight lines and angles. Additional analyses (see Figure 9) showed that the categorisation was more difficult when both stimuli in a pair had the same global shape (either angular or round) compared with stimuli which had different global shapes, F(1, 56) = 33.0, p < .001. Thus, when faces were presented in pairs with round objects (e.g., apple) rather than with angular objects, it was more difficult to categorise faces, F(1, 56) = 7.1, p < .05. In the same way, when buildings were presented in pairs with angular objects rather than with round objects, it was more difficult to categorise buildings; F(1, 56) = 22.3, p < .001. A significant interaction between shape similarity and eccentricity was observed; F(3, 56) = 3.6, p < .05. This interaction was only significant for buildings; F(3, 56) = 2.8, p < .05. Whereas no significant effect of shape similarity was observed in central vision for buildings; F(1, 56) < 1, ns; accuracy was significantly higher when buildings were compared with round objects than with angular objects in peripheral vision; 20°: F(1, 56) = 4.2, p < .05; 45°: F(1, 56) = 4.0, p < .05; 60°: F(1, 56) = 22.0, p < .001. For faces, the shape similarity effect was only significant at 60° eccentricity: Accuracy was higher when faces were compared with angular objects rather than with round objects at 60°; F(1, 56) = 6.8, p < .05. Moreover, even when both stimuli in a pair had the same global shape, faces were significantly better categorised than buildings in peripheral vision; 6°: F(1, 56) = 0.2, ns; 20°: F(1, 56) = 17.2, p < .001; 45°: F(1, 56) = 19.6, p < .001; 60°: F(1, 56) = 40.9, p < .001.

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.