Cited by 63Visual perception and processing mechanismsVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionFace Recognition and Perception

A decisional account of subjective inflation of visual perception at the periphery

Open access
Solovey, Guillermo, Graney, Guy Gerard, Lau, Hakwan·2015·Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

Abstract

Human peripheral vision appears vivid compared to foveal vision; the subjectively perceived level of detail does not seem to drop abruptly with eccentricity. This compelling impression contrasts with the fact that spatial resolution is substantially lower at the periphery. A similar phenomenon occurs in visual attention, in which subjects usually overestimate their perceptual capacity in the unattended periphery. We have previously shown that at identical eccentricity, low spatial attention is associated with liberal detection biases, which we argue may reflect inflated subjective perceptual qualities. Our computational model suggests that this subjective inflation occurs because under the lack of attention, the trial-by-trial variability of the internal neural response is increased, resulting in more frequent surpassing of a detection criterion. In the current work, we hypothesized that the same mechanism may be at work in peripheral vision. We investigated this possibility in psychophysical experiments in which participants performed a simultaneous detection task at the center and at the periphery. Confirming our hypothesis, we found that participants adopted a conservative criterion at the center and liberal criterion at the periphery. Furthermore, an extension of our model predicts that detection bias will be similar at the center and at the periphery if the periphery stimuli are magnified. A second experiment successfully confirmed this prediction. These results suggest that, although other factors contribute to subjective inflation of visual perception in the periphery, such as top-down filling-in of information, the decision mechanism may be relevant too.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/s13414-014-0769-1

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In detection and coarse discrimination tasks, Lau, Rahnev, and colleagues report that subjects overestimate their confidence in the periphery and for unattended stimuli.

    “In detection and coarse discrimination tasks, Lau, Rahnev, and colleagues report that subjects overestimate their confidence in the periphery and for unattended stimuli.”

    From Comparing Bayesian and non-Bayesian accounts of human confidence reports (2018) · cites this paper as [63]

    The Results (p. 5) show a more liberal detection criterion and more false alarms for peripheral than central stimuli. The introduction (p. 1) reports a similar liberal detection bias for unattended stimuli in earlier work. But this paper does not report confidence ratings or a coarse-discrimination result, so it does not establish that subjects overestimated their confidence in both tasks. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 53

  1. Alvarez, G. A. (2011). Representing multiple objects as an ensemble enhances visual cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15 (3), 122 -131. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.01.003 · DOI
  2. Anstis, S. (1998). Picturing peripheral acuity. Perception, 27 (7), 817 -825.
  3. Azzopardi, P., & Cowey, A. (1993). Preferential representation of the fovea in the primary visual cortex. Nature, 361 (6414), 719 -721. doi: 10.1038/361719a0 · DOI
  4. Balas, B., Nakano, L., & Rosenholtz, R. (2009). A summary-statistic representation in peripheral vision explains visual crowding. Journal of Vision, 9 (12), 13.1 -18. doi:10.1167/9.12.13 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Banks, M. S., Sekuler, A. B., & Anderson, S. J. (1991). Peripheral spatial vision: limits imposed by optics, photoreceptors, and receptor pooling. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, Optics and Image Science, 8 (11), 1775 -1787.
  6. Bisley, J. W. (2011). The neural basis of visual attention. The Journal of Physiology, 589 (Pt 1), 49 -57. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2010.192666 · DOI
  7. Block, N. (2011). Perceptual consciousness overflows cognitive access. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15 (12), 567 -575. doi:10.1016/j.tics. 2011.11.001 · DOI
  8. Boucart, M., Moroni, C., Thibaut, M., Szaffarczyk, S., & Greene, M. (2013). Scene categorization at large visual eccentricities. Vision Research, 86, 35 -42. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2013.04.006 · DOI
  9. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10 (4), 433 -436.
  10. Bressler, D. W., & Silver, M. A. (2010). Spatial attention improves reliability of fMRI retinotopic mapping signals in occipital and parietal cortex. NeuroImage, 53 (2), 526 -533. doi:10.1016/j. neuroimage.2010.06.063 · DOI
  11. Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model Selection and MultiModel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach (p. 488). Springer.
  12. Cafaro, J., & Rieke, F. (2010). Noise correlations improve response fidelity and stimulus encoding. Nature, 468 (7326), 964 -967. doi: 10.1038/nature09570 · DOI
  13. Carrasco, M. (2011). Visual attention: The past 25 years. Vision Research . doi:10.1016/j.visres.2011.04.012 · DOI
  14. Carrasco, M., & Frieder, K. S. (1997). Cortical magnification neutralizes the eccentricity effect in visual search. Vision Research, 37 (1), 63 -82.
  15. Curcio, C. A., Sloan, K. R., Kalina, R. E., & Hendrickson, A. E. (1990). Human photoreceptor topography. The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 292 (4), 497 -523. doi:10.1002/cne. 902920402 · DOI
  16. Daniel, P. M., & Whitteridge, D. (1961). The representation of the visual field on the cerebral cortex in monkeys. The Journal of Physiology, 159, 203 -221.
  17. DeValois, R. L., & DeValois, K. K. (1988). Spatial Vision (p. 400). Oxford University Press.
  18. Dorfman, D. D., & Alf, E. (1969). Maximum-likelihood estimation of parameters of signal-detection theory and determination of confidence intervals -Rating-method data. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 6 (3), 487 -496.
  19. Eckstein, M. P., Peterson, M. F., Pham, B. T., & Droll, J. A. (2009). Statistical decision theory to relate neurons to behavior in the study of covert visual attention. Vision Research, 49 (10), 1097 -1128. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2008.12.008 · DOI
  20. Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1994). An Introduction to the Bootstrap (p. 456). CRC Press.
  21. Gorea, A., & Sagi, D. (2000). Failure to handle more than one internal representation in visual detection tasks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 97 (22), 12380 -12384. doi:10.1073/pnas.97.22.12380 · DOI
  22. Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt, C. D., & Vecchi, M. P. (1983). Optimization by simulated annealing. Science (New York, N.Y.) , 220 (4598), 671 -80. doi:10.1126/science.220.4598.671 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Kouider, S., de Gardelle, V ., Sackur, J., & Dupoux, E. (2010). How rich is consciousness? The partial awareness hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14 (7), 301 -307. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.04.006 · DOI
  24. Lamme, V. A. F. (2010). How neuroscience will change our view on consciousness. Cognitive Neuroscience, 1 (3), 204 -220. doi:10. 1080/17588921003731586
  25. Lau, H., & Rahnev, D. A. (2011). The paradoxical negative relationship between attention-related spontaneous neural activity and perceptual decisions. Journal of Vision, 11 (11), 20 -20. doi:10.1167/11.11.20 · DOI
  26. Levi, D. M. (2008). Crowding -an essential bottleneck for object recognition: a mini-review. Vision Research, 48 (5), 635 -654. doi:10. 1016/j.visres.2007.12.009
  27. Lima, B., Singer, W., Chen, N.-H., & Neuenschwander, S. (2010). Synchronization dynamics in response to plaid stimuli in monkey V1. Cerebral Cortex (New York, N.Y.: 1991) , 20 (7), 1556 -73. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhp218 · DOI
  28. Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2004). Detection Theory: A User ' s Guide (p. 512). Psychology Press.
  29. Mullen, K. T. (1991). Colour vision as a post-receptoral specialization of the central visual field. Vision Research, 31 (1), 119 -130.
  30. Noorlander, C., Koenderink, J. J., Den Olden, R. J., & Edens, B. W. (1983). Sensitivity to spatiotemporal colour contrast in the peripheral visual field. Vision Research, 23 (1), 1 -11.
  31. O ' Regan, J. K. (1992). Solving the ' real ' mysteries of visual perception: the world as an outside memory. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46, 461 -488. doi:10.1037/h0084327 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Oliva, A. (2005). Gist of the Scene. In L. Itti, G. Rees, & J. Tsotsos (Eds.), Neurobiology of Attention (pp. 251 -256). San Diego: Elsevier.
  33. Parkes, L., Lund, J., Angelucci, A., Solomon, J. A., & Morgan, M. (2001). Compulsory averaging of crowded orientation signals in human vision. Nature Neuroscience, 4 (7), 739 -744. doi:10.1038/ 89532
  34. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10 (4), 437 -442.
  35. Pelli, D. G., & Tillman, K. A. (2008). The uncrowded window of object recognition. Nature Neuroscience, 11 (10), 1129 -1135.
  36. Pestilli, F., Carrasco, M., Heeger, D. J., & Gardner, J. L. (2011). Attentional enhancement via selection and pooling of early sensory responses in human visual cortex. Neuron, 72 (5), 832 -846. doi:10. 1016/j.neuron.2011.09.025
  37. Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology . doi:10.1080/00335558008248231 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Rahnev, D. A., Bahdo, L., De Lange, F. P., & Lau, H. (2012a). PreStimulus hemodynamic activity in dorsal attention network is negatively associated with decision confidence in visual perception. Journal of Neurophysiology, 108 (5), 1529 -1536. doi:10.1152/jn. 00184.2012 · DOI
  39. Rahnev, D. A., Maniscalco, B., Graves, T., Huang, E., de Lange, F. P., & Lau, H. (2011). Attention induces conservative subjective biases in visual perception. Nature Neuroscience, 14 (12), 1513 -1515. doi:10. 1038/nn.2948
  40. Rahnev, D. A., Maniscalco, B., Luber, B., Lau, H., & Lisanby, S. H. (2012b). Direct injection of noise to the visual cortex decreases accuracy but increases decision confidence. Journal of Neurophysiology, 107 (6), 1556 -1563. doi:10. 1152/jn.00985.2011
  41. Rounis, E., Maniscalco, B., Rothwell, J. C., Passingham, R. E., & Lau, H. (2010). Theta-burst transcranial magnetic stimulation to the prefrontal cortex impairs metacognitive visual awareness. Cognitive Neuroscience, 1 (3), 165 -175. doi:10.1080/ 17588921003632529
  42. Scholl, B. J. (2001). Objects and attention: The state of the art. Cognition . doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00152-9 · DOI
  43. Simonotto, E., Riani, M., Seife, C., Roberts, M., Twitty, J., & Moss, F. (1997). Visual Perception of Stochastic Resonance. Physical Review Letters, 78 (6), 1186 -1189.
  44. Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception, 28 (9), 1059 -1074.
  45. Simons, D. J., & Levin, D. T. (1997). Change blindness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1 (7), 261 -267.
  46. Strasburger, H., Rentschler, I., & Jüttner, M. (2011). Peripheral vision and pattern recognition: A review. Journal of Vision, 11, 1 -82. doi:10. 1167/11.5.13.Contents
  47. Summerfield, C., & Egner, T. (2009). Expectation (and attention) in visual cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13 (9), 403 -409. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.06.003 · DOI · Paper page
  48. VanPelt, S., & Fries, P. (2013). Visual stimulus eccentricity affects human gamma peak frequency. NeuroImage, 78, 439 -447. doi:10.1016/j. neuroimage.2013.04.040 · DOI
  49. Virsu, V., Näsänen, R., & Osmoviita, K. (1987). Cortical magnification and peripheral vision. Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, 4 (8), 1568. doi:10.1364/JOSAA.4.001568 · DOI
  50. Watson, A. B., & Pelli, D. G. (1983). QUEST: a Bayesian adaptive psychometric method. Perception & Psychophysics, 33 (2), 113 -120.
  51. Wyart, V., Nobre, A. C., & Summerfield, C. (2012). Dissociable prior influences of signal probability and relevance on visual contrast sensitivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109 (9), 3593 -3598. doi:10.1073/ pnas.1120118109
  52. Zak, I., Katkov, M., Gorea, A., & Sagi, D. (2012). Decision criteria in dual discrimination tasks estimated using external-noise methods. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74 (5), 1042 -1055. doi:10. 3758/s13414-012-0269-0
  53. Zhang, H., Morvan, C., & Maloney, L. T. (2010). Gambling in the visual periphery: a conjoint-measurement analysis of human ability to judge visual uncertainty. PLoS Computational Biology, 6 (12), e1001023. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1001023 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Solovey, G., Graney, G. G., & Lau, H.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Solovey, Guillermo
Venue
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
Published
2014-09-24
Volume
77
Issue
1
Pages
258-271
ISSN
  • 1943-3921 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-393X
OpenAlex
W1970227435
Cited by
63
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 8
FWCI
1.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Attention Perception & Psychophysics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion)
  • Conicet (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
Keywords
peripheral vision, visual detection, detection criteria, eccentricity, spatial resolution, trial-to-trial variability, neural response variability, decision-making mechanisms, visual attention, magnification, filling-in
MeSH terms
Attention, Decision Making, Eye Movements, Fovea Centralis, Humans, Psychomotor Performance, Vision, Ocular, Visual Perception, Signal Detection, Psychological, Feedback, Psychological, Young Adult

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