Foveal contour interaction: detection and discrimination

Foveal crowding for large and small Landolt Cs: Similarity and Attention

We compare the recognition of foveal crowded Landolt Cs of two sizes: brief (40 ms), large, low-contrast Cs and high-contrast (1 sec) tests at the resolution limit of the visual system. In different series, the test Landolt C was surrounded by two identical distractors located symmetrically along the horizontal or by a single distractor. The distractors were Landolt Cs or rings. At the resolution limit, the critical spacing was similar in the two series and did not depend on the type of distractor. The result supports the hypothesis that crowding at the resolution limit occurs when both the test and the distractors fall into the same smallest receptive field responsible for the target recognition. For large stimuli, at almost all separations distractors of the same shape caused greater impairment than did rings, and recognition errors were non-random. The critical spacing was equal to 0.5 test diameters only in the presence of one distracting Landolt C. This result suggests that attention is involved: When one distractor is added, involuntary attention, which is directed to the centre of gravity of the stimulus, can lead to confusion of features that are present in both tests and distractors and thus to non-random errors.

Crowding can impact both low and high contrast visual acuity measurements

The adverse impact of adjacent contours on letter visual acuity is known as crowding but there is conflicting evidence that foveal crowding may be reduced or disappears under low contrast conditions. Potential differences in foveal crowding with contrast on clinical measurements of visual acuity, including test–retest repeatability, were assessed. Visual acuity was measured at the fovea on adult participants with normal vision under three different contrast levels (− 90, − 10 and − 5%). Three rows of 5 letters, each row differing in size by 0.05 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) from largest to smallest were displayed at the center of a monitor. Crowding was varied by varying the separation between horizontally adjacent letters from 100% optotype size to 50%, 20% and 10% optotype size. Inter-row spacing was proportional to optotype size. Observers read the letters on the middle row only. Measurements continued by reducing the size of the letters until 3 or more errors were made and were repeated on two separate days. Visual acuity worsened as both letter contrast decreased and inter-optotype separation reduced (expressed as a percentage of letter width). When expressed in minutes of arc of separation the impact of crowding was the same across all contrasts. Crowding occurs for both high and low contrast charts and should be considered when assessing low contrast visual acuity. Test–retest repeatability showed little or no dependence on either contrast or inter-optotype separation.

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.

Seven Myths on Crowding and Peripheral Vision

Crowding has become a hot topic in vision research, and some fundamentals are now widely agreed upon. For the classical crowding task, one would likely agree with the following statements. (1) Bouma's law can be stated, succinctly and unequivocally, as saying that critical distance for crowding is about half the target's eccentricity. (2) Crowding is predominantly a peripheral phenomenon. (3) Peripheral vision extends to at most 90° eccentricity. (4) Resolution threshold (the minimal angle of resolution) increases strongly and linearly with eccentricity. Crowding increases at an even steeper rate. (5) Crowding is asymmetric as Bouma has shown. For that inner-outer asymmetry, the peripheral flanker has more effect. (6) Critical crowding distance corresponds to a constant cortical distance in primary visual areas like V1. (7) Except for Bouma's seminal article in 1970, crowding research mostly became prominent starting in the 2000s. I propose the answer is "not really" or "not quite" to these assertions. So should we care? I think we should, before we write the textbook chapters for the next generation.

Contour interaction under photopic and scotopic conditions

In the present study, we asked whether contour interaction undergoes significant changes for different luminance levels in the central and peripheral visual field. This study included nine normal observers at two laboratories (five at Palacky University Olomouc, Czech Republic and four at the University of Houston, USA). Observers viewed a randomly selected Sloan letter surrounded by four equally spaced bars for several separations measured edge-to-edge in min arc. Stimuli were viewed foveally under photopic and mesopic luminances and between 5° and 12° peripherally for four different background luminances of the display monitors, corresponding to photopic, mesopic, scotopic, and dim scotopic levels. The extent of the contour interaction in the fovea is approximately 20 times smaller than in the periphery. Whereas the magnitude of foveal contour interaction markedly decreases with decreasing luminance, no consistent luminance-induced change occurs in peripheral contour interaction. The extent of contour interaction does not scale with the size of the target letter, either in the fovea or peripherally. The results support a neural origin of contour interaction consistent with the properties of center-surround antagonism.

Foveal visual acuity is worse and shows stronger contour interaction effects for contrast-modulated than luminance-modulated Cs

Contrast-modulated (CM) stimuli are processed by spatial mechanisms that operate at larger spatial scales than those processing luminance-modulated (LM) stimuli and may be more prone to deficits in developing, amblyopic, and aging visual systems. Understanding neural mechanisms of contour interaction or crowding will help in detecting disorders of spatial vision. In this study, contour interaction effects on visual acuity for LM and CM C and bar stimuli are assessed in normal foveal vision. In Experiment 1, visual acuity is measured for all-LM and all-CM stimuli, at ~3.5× above their respective modulation thresholds. In Experiment 2, visual acuity is measured for Cs and bars of different type (LM C with CM bars and vice versa). Visual acuity is degraded for CM compared with LM Cs (0.46 ± 0.04 logMAR vs. 0.18 ± 0.04 logMAR). With nearby bars, CM acuity is degraded further (0.23 ± 0.01 logMAR or ~2 lines on an acuity chart), significantly more than LM acuity (0.11 ± 0.01 logMAR, ~1 line). Contour interaction for CM stimuli extends over greater distances (arcmin) than it does for LM stimuli, but extents are similar with respect to acuities (~3.5× the C gap width). Contour interaction is evident when the Cs and bars are defined differently: it is stronger when an LM C is flanked by CM bars (0.17 ± 0.03 logMAR) than when a CM C is flanked by LM bars (0.08 ± 0.02 logMAR). Our results suggest that contour interaction for foveally viewed acuity stimuli involves feature integration, such that the outputs of receptive fields representing Cs and bars are combined. Contour interaction operates at LM and CM representational stages, it can occur across stage, and it is enhanced at the CM stage. Greater contour interaction for CM Cs and bars could hold value for visual acuity testing and earlier diagnosis of conditions for which crowding is important, such as in amblyopia.

Developmental changes during childhood in single-letter acuity and its crowding by surrounding contours

Crowding refers to impaired target recognition caused by surrounding contours. We investigated the development of crowding in central vision by comparing single-letter and crowding thresholds in groups of 5-year-olds, 8-year-olds, 11-year-olds, and adults. The task was to discriminate the orientation of a Sloan letter E. Single-letter thresholds, defined as the stroke width forming the smallest discriminable E, were worse than those of adults (0.83 arcmin) at 5 years of age (1.05 arcmin) but not at older ages (8-year-olds: 0.81 arcmin; 11-year-olds: 0.78 arcmin). The maximum distances over which crowding occurred, as measured in multiples of threshold stroke width, were smaller in adults (2.83) than in the three groups of children, who did not differ from each other (5-year-olds: 7.03; 8-year-olds: 7.84; 11-year-olds: 7.13). Thus, even 11-year-olds are more affected than adults by surrounding contours despite having single-letter acuity that has been mature for several years. The stronger influence of crowding in children may be caused by immaturities in the brain areas beyond the primary visual cortex (V1) where early visual inputs are combined and may contribute to their slower reading speed.

The ON–OFF dichotomy in visual processing: From receptors to perception

Vision scientists long ago pointed to black and white as separate sensations and saw confirmation in the fact that in the absence of light, one perceives the visual field as gray against which the negative after-image of a bright light appeared blacker. The first recordings from optic nerve fibers in vertebrates revealed ON and OFF signals, later associated with separate streams, arising already at the synapse between receptors and bipolar cells. These can be identified anatomically and physiologically and remain distinct all the way to the lateral geniculate nucleus, whose fibers form the input to the primary visual cortex. The dichotomy has been probed by electroretinography and analyzed by means of pharmacological agents and dysfunction due to genetic causes. The bi- rather than a unidirectional nature of the retinal output has advantages in allowing small signals to remain prominent over a greater dynamic range. The two streams innervate cortical neurons in a push-pull manner, generating receptive fields with spatial sensitivity profiles featuring ON and OFF subregions. Manifestations of the dichotomy appear in a variety of simple visual discriminations where there are often profound threshold differences in patterns with same polarity as compared with mixed contrast-polarity components. But even at levels in which the spatial, contrast and color attributes have already been securely established and black and white elements participate equally, a categorical difference between blackness and whiteness of a percept persists. It is an opponency, akin to the ones in the color domain, derived from the original ON and OFF signals and subsequently bound with the other attributes to yield a feature's unitary percept.