Contour interaction under photopic and scotopic conditions

Crowding under scotopic and photopic vision in albino and normal-sighted participants

Crowding is a phenomenon in which the ability to recognize an object in a clutter deteriorates. It is, therefore, a fundamental aspect of object recognition and crucial in deciphering resolution. For visually impaired individuals, deficiency in crowding has a tremendous effect on vision and may reflect and predict the amount of deterioration in vision. It is well established that albinos suffer much more from crowding than normally sighted individuals under daylight luminance conditions. However, to our knowledge, this study is the first to investigate crowding in albino participants under low light conditions. In this study, we explored the crowding effect in a group of albino participants (n = 9) and a control group of normally sighted participants (n = 9). Crowding was conducted under daylight (photopic vision) and low light (scotopic vision). We measured the visual acuity threshold under crowding in three-letter spacing (0.5, 1, and 1.5) and compared it to a single target. Results indicate that albino participants experienced stronger crowding than the control under the photopic condition, while crowding under the scotopic condition was apparent in the albino but abolished for the control group. These findings highlight the importance of considering luminance when discussing the visually impaired population in general. In particular, it suggests that crowding in albinism is based on a peripheral-like mechanism and may indicate a cessation in visual development.

Crowding expands and is less sensitive to target-flanker differences during a shift of visual attention

Target-flanker similarity and critical spacing control visual crowding when attention is pre-allocated, but these have not been studied when attention shifts. Flanked target Gabors appeared 8° left and right of central fixation throughout each 1.5 s trial. Subjects reported target Gabor tilt. In Expt. 1, target blinks increased accuracy, and flanker blinks decreased it, but only when attention shifted left or right from a central RSVP cue, hardly before it, indicating an exogenous/endogenous synergy. Whether parallel or orthogonal, flankers of the same wavelength as the target crowded substantially. Parallel half-wavelength flankers also crowded, but orthogonal half-wavelength ones did not. In Expt. 2, crowding when attention shifts was the same for targets and flankers within Bouma's bound (2.5° apart) as outside it (5.0° apart.) In Expt. 3, Bouma's bound was restored when attention was focused continuously on the target. We conclude that crowding temporarily expands and becomes less discriminative when attention shifts.

Cortical distance unifies the extent of parafoveal contour interactions

It is well known that crowding, the disruptive influence of flanking items on identification of targets, is the primary limiting factor to object identification in the periphery, while limits in the fovea are more determined by the ability to resolve individual items. Whether this is a dichotomous or merely a quantitative difference, and the transition between these two regimes, has remained unexplained. Here, using an adaptive optics system for optimal control of optical and stimulus factors, we measured threshold acuity for identification of Tumbling Es flanked by bars at a variety of flanker spacings and eight eccentricities in the parafovea. Thresholds at each eccentricity were influenced by resolution, contour interaction, and a saturating pedestal effect. When target-flanker spacing was plotted in terms of cortical distance, a single canonical clipped-line fit unified the resultant curves. The critical spacing for letters flanked by bars was found to be 1.3 to 1.5 cortical millimeters, corresponding to approximately 0.1*E outside the fovea.

A Comparison of Foveal and Peripheral Contour Interaction and Crowding

SIGNIFICANCE

Performance on clinical tests of visual acuity can be influenced by the presence of nearby targets. This study compared the influence of neighboring flanking bars and letters on foveal and peripheral letter identification.

PURPOSE

Contour interaction and crowding refer to an impairment of visual resolution or discrimination produced by different types of flanking stimuli. This study compared the impairment of percent correct letter identification that is produced in normal observers when a target letter is surrounded by an array of four flanking bars (contour interaction) or four flanking letters (crowding).

METHODS

Performance was measured at the fovea and at eccentricities of 1.25, 2.5, and 5° for photopic (200 cd/m2) and mesopic stimuli (0.5 cd/m2) and a range of target-to-flanker separations.

RESULTS

Consistent with previous reports, foveal contour interaction and crowding were more pronounced for photopic than mesopic targets. However, no statistically significant difference existed between foveal contour-interaction and crowding functions at either luminance level. On the other hand, flanking bars produced much less impairment of letter identification than letter flankers at all three peripheral locations, indicating that crowding is more severe than contour interaction in peripheral vision. In contrast to the fovea, peripheral crowding and contour-interaction functions did not differ systematically for targets of photopic and mesopic luminance.

CONCLUSION

The similarity between foveal contour interaction and crowding and the dissimilarity between peripheral contour interaction and crowding suggest the involvement of different mechanisms at different retinal locations.

Technical Report: The Mechanism of Contour Interaction Differs in the Fovea and Periphery

SIGNIFICANCE

Both foveal and peripheral contour interactions are based on, as yet, unexplained neural mechanisms. Our results show that, unlike foveal contour interaction, peripheral contour interaction cannot be explained on the basis of the antagonistic structure of neural receptive fields.

PURPOSE

Foveal contour interaction is markedly reduced for mesopic compared with photopic targets. This finding is consistent with an explanation based on the antagonistic structure of neural receptive fields. However, no reduction was found for low-luminance targets in the periphery, possibly because the luminances used previously remained substantially above peripheral scotopic detection thresholds. In this study, we compared foveal and peripheral contour interactions for long-wavelength photopic and mesopic targets, which would be expected to significantly elevate the peripheral retinal detection threshold.

METHODS

Five normal observers viewed a randomly selected Sloan letter surrounded by four flanking bars at several edge-to-edge separations (min arc). Photopic and mesopic stimuli were viewed foveally and at 6° peripherally through a selective red filter that ensured that mesopic targets were within 1 log unit of detection threshold at both retinal locations.

RESULTS

Whereas the magnitude of foveal contour interaction was substantially less at mesopic compared with photopic luminance (20 vs. 46% reduction of percent correct, on average), no significant difference was observed in peripheral contour interaction, which had average mesopic and photopic magnitudes of 38 and 40%. Moreover, confusion matrices representing photopic and mesopic contour interaction differed in the fovea but not in the periphery. The extent of contour interaction did not change with luminance at either retinal location.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that, although the characteristics of foveal contour interaction can be accounted for by the antagonistic structure of neural receptive fields, the same mechanism is not compatible with the characteristics of peripheral contour interaction.

Number of flankers influences foveal crowding and contour interaction differently

Nearby flanking objects degrade visual resolution. If the flankers are similar to the acuity target, this influence is called crowding (CW), whereas if the flanking stimuli are simple bars then the phenomenon is known as contour interaction (CI). The aim of this study was to compare the influence of the number and position of flankers on foveal CW and CI to investigate possible differences in mechanism of these two effects. Five normal observers viewed single, foveally presented Sloan letters surrounded by 1, 2 or 4 flankers (either a Sloan letter or one-stroke-width bars), presented at several edge-to-edge separations. Single flankers were presented in the right, left, top or bottom position, 2 flankers were placed equally to the right and left or top and bottom of the central target, and 4 flankers were equally spaced in all four directions. Percent correct letter identification was determined for each type, number, position and separation of flankers and confusion matrices were constructed for separations equal to 20% and 100% letter width. Increasing the number of flankers caused an increase in the magnitude of both phenomena. CW showed a greater magnitude than CI for higher numbers of flankers. Analysis of confusion matrices suggests that in addition to the edge-to-edge interaction that appears to mediate CI, letter substitution and feature pooling contribute significantly to CW when higher numbers of flankers are presented. Foveal CW is more strongly influenced by an increase in the number of flankers than CI, which can be explained by the presence of additional interaction effects.

Reduced fixation stability induced by peripheral viewing does not contribute to crowding

Attending to peripheral visual targets while maintaining central fixation, a process that involves covert attention, reduces fixation stability. Here, we tested the hypothesis that changes in fixation stability induced by peripheral viewing contribute to crowding in peripheral vision by increasing positional uncertainty. We first assessed whether fixation was less stable during peripheral versus central (foveal) viewing for both crowded and uncrowded stimuli. We then tested whether fixation stability during peripheral viewing was associated with the extent of crowding. Fourteen participants performed a tumbling E orientation discrimination task at three different eccentricities (0°, 5°, 10°). The target was presented with or without flankers. Fixational eye movements were measured using an infrared video-based eyetracker. A central fixation cross was provided for the two peripheral viewing conditions, and optotype size was scaled for each eccentricity. Discrimination of appropriately scaled uncrowded stimuli was unaffected by eccentricity, whereas discrimination of crowded stimuli deteriorated dramatically with eccentricity, despite scaling. Both crowded and uncrowded peripheral stimuli were associated with reduced fixation stability, increased microsaccadic amplitude, and a greater proportion of horizontal microsaccades relative to centrally presented stimuli. However, these effects were not associated with the magnitude of crowding. This suggests that reduced fixation stability due to peripheral viewing does not contribute to crowding in peripheral vision.