ArticleScientific reports2017
Visual crowding is a combination of an increase of positional uncertainty, source confusion, and featural averaging.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- The development of visual acuity and crowding reveals the slow fine-tuning of foveal vision.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Target-flanker similarity alters the spatial profile of visual crowding.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Limits of iconic capacity for spatial position.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Measuring spatial and temporal properties of visual crowding using continuous psychophysics.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- A computational approach to the N-back task.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Attention moderates the motion silencing effect for dynamic orientation changes in a discrimination task.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- Oculomotor Contributions to Foveal Crowding.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024Article
- Article
- Visual crowding: Double dissociation between orientation and brightness judgments.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- Crowding changes appearance systematically in peripheral, amblyopic, and developing vision.Journal of vision · 2022Article
- Spatial structure, phase, and the contrast of natural images.Journal of vision · 2022Article
- Mixture model investigation of the inner-outer asymmetry in visual crowding reveals a heavier weight towards the visual periphery.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Crowding and attention in a framework of neural network model.Journal of vision · 2020Article
- Reduced fixation stability induced by peripheral viewing does not contribute to crowding.Journal of vision · 2020Article
- Response selection modulates crowding: a cautionary tale for invoking top-down explanations.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2020Article
- Empirical Evidence for Intraspecific Multiple Realization?Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Feature contingencies when reading letter strings.Vision research · 2019Article
- Visual Working Memory Is Independent of the Cortical Spacing Between Memoranda.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although we perceive a richly detailed visual world, our ability to identify individual objects is severely limited in clutter, particularly in peripheral vision. Models of such "crowding" have generally been driven by the phenomenological misidentifications of crowded targets: using stimuli that do not easily combine to form a unique symbol (e.g. letters or objects), observers typically confuse the source of objects and report either the target or a distractor, but when continuous features are used (e.g. orientated gratings or line positions) observers report a feature somewhere between the target and distractor. To reconcile these accounts, we develop a hybrid method of adjustment that allows detailed analysis of these multiple error categories. Observers reported the orientation of a target, under several distractor conditions, by adjusting an identical foveal target. We apply new modelling to quantify whether perceptual reports show evidence of positional uncertainty, source confusion, and featural averaging on a trial-by-trial basis. Our results show that observers make a large proportion of source-confusion errors. However, our study also reveals the distribution of perceptual reports that underlie performance in this crowding task more generally: aggregate errors cannot be neatly labelled because they are heterogeneous and their structure depends on target-distractor distance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.