Journal of Vision最新文献

Visual illusions are systematic misperceptions that can help us glean the heuristics with which the brain constructs visual experience. In a recently discovered visual illusion (the "frame effect"), it has been shown that flashing a stimulus inside of a moving frame produces a large misperception of that stimulus's position. Across two experiments, we investigated a novel illusion (the "split stimulus effect") where the symmetrical motion of two overlaid frames produces two simultaneous positional misperceptions of a single stimulus. That is, one stimulus is presented but two are perceived. In both experiments, a single red dot was flashed when the moving frames reversed direction, and participants were asked to report how many dots they saw. Naïve participants sometimes reported seeing two dots when only one was presented, indicating spontaneous perception of the illusion. A Bayesian analysis of the population prevalence of this effect was conducted. The dependence of this effect on the frames' speed, the dot's opacity, spatial attention, as the presence/absence of pre-flash motion ("postdiction") was also investigated, and the features of this illusion were compared to similar motion position illusions within a predictive processing framework. In demonstrating this illusory "splitting" effect, this study is the first to show that it is possible to be simultaneously aware of two opposing perceptual predictions about a single object and provides evidence of the hyperpriors that limit and inform the structure of visual experience.

Holistic processing, a strong tendency to process multiple features together, is regarded as a hallmark of face perception. Holistic effects can be revealed by several tasks, including the part-whole task, standard composite task, and complete composite task. Although holistic effects are readily observed using these tasks, the lack of correlations among these effects and the mixed findings across these tasks when examining the effects among various populations or manipulations pose questions about how these effects should be understood. We distinguished facilitation and interference effects within the holistic effects in the complete composite task and found that the holistic effect in the part-whole task appeared to be correlated with facilitation but not interference in the complete composite task, whereas the holistic effect in the standard composite task was correlated with interference but not facilitation in the complete composite task. These findings suggest that clarifying the roles of facilitation and interference is critical for understanding holistic face processing.

Our brains do not always encode visual information in a veridical way. Visual working memory (WM) for features such as color can be biased. WM bias comes from several sources. Category priors can lead to WM bias. For example, color WM is biased toward or away from category prototypes. In addition to category knowledge, contextual factors can induce and modulate WM bias; however, these biases of different sources have usually been investigated independently with different tasks. The present study sought to explore how color WM is influenced by both color category and concurrent distractor. Specifically, we asked participants to retain two color items in WM to investigate how the WM representation of the target color is biased by learned category knowledge and contextual inter-item interactions. Our study found that the WM representation of the target color is biased toward or away from the category prototypes and away from the distractor color that is simultaneously held in WM, indicating that both color category and concurrent distractor bias color WM. More importantly, the weight of these two biases depends on the specific color category, suggesting that category priors and inter-item interaction biases are not simply additive but flexible. Furthermore, we revealed that both types of biases arise from perceptual processes.

Previous studies have elucidated that humans can implicitly process faces faster than they process objects. However, the mechanism through which the brain unconsciously processes ambiguous facial images remains unclear. In our experiment, upright and inverted black-and-white binary face stimuli were presented in a two-alternative forced-choice location discrimination task combined with continuous flash suppression, a technique that suppresses visual stimuli perception using rapidly changing masks. The breaking time (BT) or the time required for a stimulus to be perceptually recognized was recorded for each face stimulus. The results showed that the BT for inverted grayscale images was significantly longer than that for upright grayscale faces, whereas the BT for upright and inverted binary faces did not reach statistical significance. A significant correlation between face likeness and BT was established after evaluating face likeness for each binary face stimulus, with high-face-like binary faces exhibiting shorter BT and low-face-like stimuli resulting in a more prolonged BT. Our results suggest that even an ambiguous object rated highly in face likeness can reduce the BT under implicit processing, indicating the possibility that facial parts such as the eyes and nose are subconsciously detected in ambiguous facial stimuli, enabling facial perception.

When target and distractor stimuli are close together, they activate the same neurons and there is ambiguity as to what the neural activity represents. It has been suggested that the ambiguity is resolved by spatial competition between target and nontarget stimuli. A competitive advantage is conveyed by bottom-up biases (e.g., stimulus saliency) and top-down biases (e.g., the match to a stored representation of the target stimulus). Here, we tested the hypothesis that regions with high perceptual performance may provide a bottom-up bias, resulting in increased distractor interference. Initially, we focused on two known anisotropies. At equal distance from central fixation, perceptual performance is better along the horizontal than the vertical meridian, and in the lower than in the upper visual hemifield. Consistently, interference from distractors on the horizontal meridian was greater than interference from distractors on the vertical meridian. However, distractors in the lower hemifield interfered less than distractors in the upper visual hemifield, which is contrary to the known anisotropy. These results were obtained with targets and distractors on opposite meridians. Further, we observed greater interference from distractors on the meridians compared with distractors on the diagonals, possibly reflecting anisotropies in attentional scanning. Overall, the results are only partially consistent with the hypothesis that distractor interference is larger for distractors on regions with high perceptual performance.

Serial dependence refers to a common misperception that can occur between subsequently observed stimuli. Observers misreport the current stimulus as being more similar to the previous stimulus than it objectively is. It has been proposed that this bias may reflect an attraction of the current percept to prior percept (Fischer & Whitney, 2014). Alternatively, serial dependence has also been proposed to be the result of an assimilative effect between observer decisions (Fritsche, Mostert, & de Lange, 2017; Pascucci, Mancuso, Santandrea, Libera, Plomp, & Chelazzi, 2019). Lying within this debate is the issue of how we quantify serial dependence. Should this be as a bias induced by prior stimuli or by prior responses? We investigated this by manipulating the orientation of the current stimuli such that they fell between previous stimulus and previous response. We observed an attraction to previous response and a concomitant repulsion from previous stimulus. This suggests that the attractive effect of serial dependence in orientation judgments is best quantified in relation to prior response.

The preferred retinal locus (PRL) is the position on the retina to which humans direct stimuli during fixation. In healthy normal eyes, it has been shown to be very stable across time and between different tasks. Previous measurements of the PRL have been made under monocular viewing conditions. The current study examines where the PRLs in the two eyes' retinas are when subjects fixate binocularly and whether they shift when the demand for the eyes to converge is changed. Our apparatus allows us to see exactly where binocular stimuli fell on the two retinas during binocular fixation. Thus, our technique bypasses some of the issues involved in measuring binocular alignment with subjective techniques and previous objective techniques that use conventional eye trackers. These results show that PRLs shift slightly but systematically as the demand for convergence increases. The shifts cause under-convergence (also called exo fixation disparity) for near targets. They are not large enough to cause a break in binocular fusion. The fixation disparity we observed with increasing vergence demand is similar to fixation disparity observed in previous reports.