The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Detection of animals in natural images using far peripheral vision
Abstract
It is generally believed that the acuity of the peripheral visual field is too poor to allow accurate object recognition and, that to be identified, most objects need to be brought into foveal vision by using saccadic eye movements. However, most measures of form vision in the periphery have been done at eccentricities below 10° and have used relatively artificial stimuli such as letters, digits and compound Gabor patterns. Little is known about how such data would apply in the case of more naturalistic stimuli. Here humans were required to categorize briefly flashed (28 ms) unmasked photographs of natural scenes (39° high, and 26° across) on the basis of whether or not they contained an animal. The photographs appeared randomly in nine locations across virtually the entire extent of the horizontal visual field. Accuracy was 93.3% for central vision and decreased almost linearly with increasing eccentricity (89.8% at 13°, 76.1% at 44.5° and 71.2% at 57.5°). Even at the most extreme eccentricity, where the images were centred at 70.5°, subjects scored 60.5% correct. No evidence was found for hemispheric specialization. This level of performance was achieved despite the fact that the position of the image was unpredictable, ruling out the use of precued attention to target locations. The results demonstrate that even high‐level visual tasks involving object vision can be performed using the relatively coarse information provided by the peripheral retina.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Basic objects in natural categories
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-x · Cited by 5,643
Speed of processing in the human visual system
Thorpe, S., Fize, D., & Marlot, C. (1996) · Nature · doi:10.1038/381520a0 · Cited by 3,538
Self-citationPreattentive Object Files: Shapeless Bundles of Basic Features
WOLFE, J. M., & BENNETT, S. C. (1997) · Vision Research · doi:10.1016/s0042-6989(96)00111-3 · Cited by 349
Absence of contour linking in peripheral vision
Hess, R. F., & Dakin, S. C. (1997) · Nature · doi:10.1038/37593 · Cited by 143 · cited 2×
“Another may be that contour linking may be totally absent for peripheral processing ( Hess & Dakin, 1997 ).”
Background
Cited by
Rapid detection of person information in a naturalistic scene
Fletcher-Watson, S., Findlay, J. M., Leekam, S. R., & Benson, V. (2008) · Perception · doi:10.1068/p5705 · Cited by 283
Perception of Objects in Natural Scenes: Is It Really Attention Free?
Evans, K. K., & Treisman, A. (2005) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.6.1476 · Cited by 281
Is it an animal? Is it a human face? Fast processing in upright and inverted natural scenes
Rousselet, G. A., Macé, M. J.-M., & Fabre-Thorpe, M. (2003) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/3.6.5 · Cited by 215
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Thorpe, S. J., Gegenfurtner, K. R., Fabre‐Thorpe, M., & Bülthoff, H. H.
- Venue
- European Journal of Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-09
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 869-876
- ISSN
- 0953-816X (ISSN-L)
- 1460-9568
- OpenAlex
- W2147496122
- Cited by
- 197
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 1.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Detection of animals in natural images using far peripheral vision. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.0953-816x.2001.01717.x
- The paper
- Thorpe, S. J., Gegenfurtner, K. R., Fabre‐Thorpe, M., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2001). Detection of animals in natural images using far peripheral vision. European Journal of Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0953-816x.2001.01717.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.