Broad attention uncovers benefits of stimulus uniformity in visual crowding

Investigating the crowding effect on letters and symbols in deaf adults

Reading requires the transformation of a complex array of visual features into sounds and meaning. For deaf signers who experience changes in visual attention and have little or no access to the sounds of the language they read, understanding the visual constraints underlying reading is crucial. This study aims to explore a fundamental aspect of visual perception intertwined with reading: the crowding effect. This effect manifests as the struggle to distinguish a target letter when surrounded by flanker letters. Through a two-alternative forced choice task, we assessed the recognition of letters and symbols presented in isolation or flanked by two or four characters, positioned either to the left or right of fixation. Our findings reveal that while deaf individuals exhibit higher accuracy in processing letters compared to symbols, their performance falls short of that of their hearing counterparts. Interestingly, despite their proficiency with letters, deaf individuals didn't demonstrate quicker letter identification, particularly in the most challenging scenario where letters were flanked by four characters. These outcomes imply the development of a specialized letter processing system among deaf individuals, albeit one that may subtly diverge from that of their hearing counterparts.

The radial-tangential anisotropy of numerosity perception

Humans can estimate the number of visually presented items without counting. In most studies on numerosity perception, items are uniformly distributed across displays, with identical distributions in central and eccentric parts. However, the neural and perceptual representation of the human visual field differs between the fovea and the periphery. For example, in peripheral vision, there are strong asymmetries with regard to perceptual interferences between visual items. In particular, items arranged radially usually interfere more strongly with each other than items arranged tangentially (the radial-tangential anisotropy). This has been shown for crowding (the deleterious effect of clutter on target identification) and redundancy masking (the reduction of the number of perceived items in repeating patterns). In the present study, we tested how the radial-tangential anisotropy of peripheral vision impacts numerosity perception. In four experiments, we presented displays with varying numbers of discs that were predominantly arranged radially or tangentially, forming strong and weak interference conditions, respectively. Participants were asked to report the number of discs. We found that radial displays were reported as less numerous than tangential displays for all radial and tangential manipulations: weak (Experiment 1), strong (Experiment 2), and when using displays with mixed contrast polarity discs (Experiments 3 and 4). We propose that numerosity perception exhibits a significant radial-tangential anisotropy, resulting from local spatial interactions between items.

Foveal vision determines the perceived emotion of face ensembles

People can extract summary statistical information from groups of similar objects, an ability called ensemble perception. However, not every object in a group is weighted equally. For example, in ensemble emotion perception, faces far from fixation were weighted less than faces close to fixation. Yet the contribution of foveal input in ensemble emotion perception is still unclear. In two experiments, groups of faces with varying emotions were presented for 100 ms at three different eccentricities (0°, 3°, 8°). Observers reported the perceived average emotion of the group. In two conditions, stimuli consisted of a central face flanked by eight faces (flankers) (central-present condition) and eight faces without the central face (central-absent condition). In the central-present condition, the emotion of the central face was either congruent or incongruent with that of the flankers. In Experiment 1, flanker emotions were uniform (identical flankers); in Experiment 2 they were varied. In both experiments, performance in the central-present condition was superior at 3° compared to 0° and 8°. At 0°, performance was superior in the central-absent (i.e., no foveal input) compared to the central-present condition. Poor performance in the central-present condition was driven by the incongruent condition where the foveal face strongly biased responses. At 3° and 8°, performance was comparable between central-present and central-absent conditions. Our results showed how foveal input determined the perceived emotion of face ensembles, suggesting that ensemble perception fails when salient target information is available in central vision.

Multidimensional feature interactions in visual crowding: When configural cues eliminate the polarity advantage

Crowding occurs when surrounding objects (flankers) impair target perception. A key property of crowding is the weaker interference when target and flankers strongly differ on a given dimension. For instance, identification of a target letter is usually superior with flankers of opposite versus the same contrast polarity as the target (the "polarity advantage"). High performance when target-flanker similarity is low has been attributed to the ungrouping of target and flankers. Here, we show that configural cues can override the usual advantage of low target-flanker similarity, and strong target-flanker grouping can reduce - instead of exacerbate - crowding. In Experiment 1, observers were presented with line triplets in the periphery and reported the tilt (left or right) of the central line. Target and flankers had the same (uniform condition) or opposite contrast polarity (alternating condition). Flanker configurations were either upright (||), unidirectionally tilted (\\ or //), or bidirectionally tilted (\/ or /\). Upright flankers yielded stronger crowding than unidirectional flankers, and weaker crowding than bidirectional flankers. Importantly, our results revealed a clear interaction between contrast polarity and flanker configuration. Triplets with upright and bidirectional flankers, but not unidirectional flankers, showed the polarity advantage. In Experiments 2 and 3, we showed that emergent features and redundancy masking (i.e. the reduction of the number of perceived items in repeating configurations) made it easier to discriminate between uniform triplets when flanker tilts were unidirectional (but not when bidirectional). We propose that the spatial configurations of uniform triplets with unidirectional flankers provided sufficient task-relevant information to enable a similar performance as with alternating triplets: strong-target flanker grouping alleviated crowding. We suggest that features which modulate crowding strength can interact non-additively, limiting the validity of typical crowding rules to contexts where only single, independent dimensions determine the effects of target-flanker similarity.

Atypical visual field asymmetries in redundancy masking

Redundancy masking is the reduction of the perceived number of items in repeating patterns. It shares a number of characteristics with crowding, the impairment of target identification in visual clutter. Crowding strongly depends on the location of the target in the visual field. For example, it is stronger in the upper compared to the lower visual field and is usually weakest on the horizontal meridian. This pattern of visual field asymmetries is common in spatial vision, as revealed by tasks measuring, for example, spatial resolution and contrast sensitivity. Here, to characterize redundancy masking and reveal its similarities to and differences from other spatial tasks, we investigated whether redundancy masking shows the same typical visual field asymmetries. Observers were presented with three to six radially arranged lines at 10° eccentricity at one of eight locations around fixation and were asked to report the number of lines. We found asymmetries that differed pronouncedly from those found in crowding. Redundancy masking did not differ between upper and lower visual fields. Importantly, redundancy masking was stronger on the horizontal meridian than on the vertical meridian, the opposite of what is usually found in crowding. These results show that redundancy masking diverges from crowding in regard to visual field asymmetries, suggesting different underlying mechanisms of redundancy masking and crowding. We suggest that the observed atypical visual field asymmetries in redundancy masking are due to the superior extraction of regularity and a more pronounced compression of visual space on the horizontal compared to the vertical meridian.