ArticleJournal of vision2023
Spatial variability in localization biases predicts crowding performance.
Article in Journal of vision, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Visual processing varies substantially across individuals, and prior work has shown significant individual differences in fundamental processes such as spatial localization. For example, when asked to report the location of a briefly flashed target in the periphery, different observers systematically misperceive its location in an idiosyncratic manner, showing different patterns of reproduction error across visual field locations. In this study, we tested whether these individual differences may propagate to other stages of visual processing, affecting the strength of visual crowding, which depends on the spacing between objects in the periphery. We, therefore, investigated the relationship between observers' idiosyncratic biases in localization and the strength of crowding to determine whether these spatial biases limit peripheral object recognition. To examine this relationship, we measured the strength of crowding at 12 locations at 8° eccentricity, in addition to the perceived spacing between pairs of Gaussian patches at these same locations. These measurements show an association between variability in crowding strength and perceived spacing at the same visual field locations: at locations where a participant experienced stronger crowding, their perceived spacing was smaller, and vice versa. We demonstrate that spatial heterogeneity in perceived spacing affects observers' ability to recognize objects in the periphery. Our results support the idea that variability in both spatial sensitivity and bias contribute to variability in the strength of crowding and bolster the account that variability in spatial coding may propagate across multiple stages of visual processing.
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.