Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37432845›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2023

Spatial variability in localization biases predicts crowding performance.

Zainab Haseeb, Benjamin Wolfe, Anna Kosovicheva

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Zainab HaseebDepartment of Psychology, University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.
Benjamin WolfeDepartment of Psychology, University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.
Anna KosovichevaDepartment of Psychology, University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Visual FieldsVisual PerceptionBiasHumansIndividualityNormal Distribution

Identifiers

PMID37432845
PMCPMC10351021

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.