Dataset Information

Crowding for faces is determined by visual (not holistic) similarity: Evidence from judgements of eye position.

ABSTRACT: Crowding (the disruption of object recognition in clutter) presents the fundamental limitation on peripheral vision. For simple objects, crowding is strong when target/flanker elements are similar and weak when they differ - a selectivity for target-flanker similarity. In contrast, the identification of upright holistically-processed face stimuli is more strongly impaired by upright than inverted flankers, whereas inverted face-targets are impaired by both - a pattern attributed to an additional stage of crowding selective for "holistic similarity" between faces. We propose instead that crowding is selective for target-flanker similarity in all stimuli, but that this selectivity is obscured by task difficulty with inverted face-targets. Using judgements of horizontal eye-position that are minimally affected by inversion, we find that crowding is strong when target-flanker orientations match and weak when they differ for both upright and inverted face-targets. By increasing task difficulty, we show that this selectivity for target-flanker similarity is obscured even for upright face-targets. We further demonstrate that this selectivity follows differences in the spatial order of facial features, rather than "holistic similarity" per se. There is consequently no need to invoke a distinct stage of holistic crowding for faces - crowding is selective for target-flanker similarity, even with complex stimuli such as faces.

SUBMITTER: Kalpadakis-Smith AV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6105622 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Crowding for faces is determined by visual (not holistic) similarity: Evidence from judgements of eye position.

Kalpadakis-Smith Alexandra V AV Goffaux Valérie V Greenwood John A JA

Scientific reports 20180822 1

Crowding (the disruption of object recognition in clutter) presents the fundamental limitation on peripheral vision. For simple objects, crowding is strong when target/flanker elements are similar and weak when they differ - a selectivity for target-flanker similarity. In contrast, the identification of upright holistically-processed face stimuli is more strongly impaired by upright than inverted flankers, whereas inverted face-targets are impaired by both - a pattern attributed to an additional ...[more]

PMID: 30135454

Similar Datasets

Project description:Adults combine information from different sensory modalities to estimate object properties such as size or location. This process is optimal in that (i) sensory information is weighted according to relative reliability: more reliable estimates have more influence on the combined estimate and (ii) the combined estimate is more reliable than the component uni-modal estimates. Previous studies suggest that optimal sensory integration does not emerge until around 10 years of age. Younger children rely on a single modality or combine information using inappropriate sensory weights. Children aged 4-11 and adults completed a simple audio-visual task in which they reported either the number of beeps or the number of flashes in uni-modal and bi-modal conditions. In bi-modal trials, beeps and flashes differed in number by 0, 1 or 2. Mutual interactions between the sensory signals were evident at all ages: the reported number of flashes was influenced by the number of simultaneously presented beeps and vice versa. Furthermore, for all ages, the relative strength of these interactions was predicted by the relative reliabilities of the two modalities, in other words, all observers weighted the signals appropriately. The degree of cross-modal interaction decreased with age: the youngest observers could not ignore the task-irrelevant modality-they fully combined vision and audition such that they perceived equal numbers of flashes and beeps for bi-modal stimuli. Older observers showed much smaller effects of the task-irrelevant modality. Do these interactions reflect optimal integration? Full or partial cross-modal integration predicts improved reliability in bi-modal conditions. In contrast, switching between modalities reduces reliability. Model comparison suggests that older observers employed partial integration, whereas younger observers (up to around 8 years) did not integrate, but followed a sub-optimal switching strategy, responding according to either visual or auditory information on each trial.

Dataset Information

Crowding for faces is determined by visual (not holistic) similarity: Evidence from judgements of eye position.

Publications

Crowding for faces is determined by visual (not holistic) similarity: Evidence from judgements of eye position.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure