Dataset Information

Inflation versus filling-in: why we feel we see more than we actually do in peripheral vision.

ABSTRACT: Do we perceive fine details in the visual periphery? Here, we propose that phenomenology in the visual periphery can be characterized by an inflated sense of perceptual capacity, as observers overestimate the quality of their perceptual inputs. Distinct from the well-known perceptual phenomenon of 'filling-in' where perceptual content is generated or completed endogenously, inflation can be characterized by incorrect introspection at the subjective level. The perceptual content itself may be absent or weak (i.e. not necessarily filled-in), and yet such content is mistakenly regarded by the system as rich. Behaviourally, this can be reflected by metacognitive deficits in the degree to which confidence judgements track task accuracy, and decisional biases for observers to think particular items are present, even when they are not. In two experiments using paradigms that exploit unique attributes of peripheral vision (crowding and summary statistics), we provide evidence that both types of deficits are present in peripheral vision, as observers' reports are marked by overconfidence in discrimination judgements and high numbers of false alarms in detection judgements. We discuss potential mechanisms that may be the cause of inflation and propose future experiments to further explore this unique sensory phenomenon.This article is part of the theme issue 'Perceptual consciousness and cognitive access'.

SUBMITTER: Odegaard B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6074087 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Inflation versus filling-in: why we feel we see more than we actually do in peripheral vision.

Odegaard Brian B Chang Min Yu MY Lau Hakwan H Cheung Sing-Hang SH

Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences 20180901 1755

Do we perceive fine details in the visual periphery? Here, we propose that phenomenology in the visual periphery can be characterized by an <i>inflated</i> sense of perceptual capacity, as observers overestimate the quality of their perceptual inputs. Distinct from the well-known perceptual phenomenon of 'filling-in' where perceptual content is generated or completed endogenously, inflation can be characterized by incorrect introspection at the subjective level. The perceptual content itself may ...[more]

PMID: 30061459

Similar Datasets

Project description:Peripheral vision has different functional priorities for mammals than foveal vision. One of its roles is to monitor the environment while central vision is focused on the current task. Becoming distracted too easily would be counterproductive in this perspective, so the brain should react to behaviourally relevant changes. Gist processing is good for this purpose, and it is therefore not surprising that evidence from both functional brain imaging and behavioural research suggests a tendency to generalize and blend information in the periphery. This may be caused by the balance of perceptual influence in the periphery between bottom-up (i.e., sensory information) and top-down (i.e., prior or contextual information) processing channels. Here, we investigated this interaction behaviourally using a peripheral numerosity discrimination task with top-down and bottom-up manipulations. Participants compared numerosity between the left and right peripheries of a screen. Each periphery was divided into a centre and a surrounding area, only one of which was a task relevant target region. Our top-down task modulation was the instruction which area to attend - centre or surround. We varied the signal strength by altering the stimuli durations i.e., the amount of information presented/processed (as a combined bottom-up and recurrent top-down feedback factor). We found that numerosity perceived in target regions was affected by contextual information in neighbouring (but irrelevant) areas. This effect appeared as soon as stimulus duration allowed the task to be reliably performed and persisted even at the longest duration (1 s). We compared the pattern of results with an ideal-observer model and found a qualitative difference in the way centre and surround areas interacted perceptually in the periphery. When participants reported on the central area, the irrelevant surround would affect the response as a weighted combination - consistent with the idea of a receptive field focused in the target area to which irrelevant surround stimulation leaks in. When participants report on surround, we can best describe the response with a model in which occasionally the attention switches from task relevant surround to task irrelevant centre - consistent with a selection model of two competing streams of information. Overall our results show that the influence of spatial context in the periphery is mandatory but task dependent.

Dataset Information

Inflation versus filling-in: why we feel we see more than we actually do in peripheral vision.

Publications

Inflation versus filling-in: why we feel we see more than we actually do in peripheral vision.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets