Humans often fail to identify a target because of nearby flankers. The nature and stages at which this crowding occurs are unclear, and whether crowding operates via a common mechanism across visual dimensions is unknown. Using a dual-estimation report (N = 42), we quantitatively assessed the processing of features alone and in conjunction with another feature both within and between dimensions. Under crowding, observers misreported colors and orientations (i.e., reported a flanker value instead of the target’s value) but averaged the target’s and flankers’ spatial frequencies (SFs). Interestingly, whereas orientation and color errors were independent, orientation and SF errors were interdependent. These qualitative differences of errors across dimensions revealed a tight link between crowding and feature binding, which is contingent on the type of feature dimension. These results and a computational model suggest that crowding and misbinding are due to pooling across a joint coding of orientations and SFs but not of colors.
BaysP. M.CatalaoR. F. G.HusainM. (2009). The precision of visual working memory is set by allocation of a shared resource. Journal of Vision, 9(10), Article 7. doi:10.1167/9.10.7
2.
BoumaH. (1970). Interaction effects in parafoveal letter recognition. Nature, 226, 177–178. doi:10.1038/226177a0
3.
CaelliT.BrettelH.RentschlerI.HilzR. (1983). Discrimination thresholds in the two-dimensional spatial frequency domain. Vision Research, 23, 129–133.
4.
DerringtonA. M.KrauskopfJ.LennieP. (1984). Chromatic mechanisms in lateral geniculate nucleus of macaque. The Journal of Physiology, 357, 241–265.
5.
De ValoisR. L.AlbrechtD. G.ThorellL. G. (1982). Spatial frequency selectivity of cells in macaque visual cortex. Vision Research, 22, 545–559. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(82)90113-4
6.
Di LolloV. (2012). The feature-binding problem is an ill-posed problem. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 317–321. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.04.007
7.
DowdE. W.GolombJ. D. (2019). Object-feature binding survives dynamic shifts of spatial attention. Psychological Science, 30, 343–361. doi:10.1177/0956797618818481
8.
EsterE. F.KleeD.AwhE. (2014). Visual crowding cannot be wholly explained by feature pooling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 1022–1033. doi:10.1037/a0035377
9.
EsterE. F.ZilberE.SerencesJ. T. (2015). Substitution and pooling in visual crowding induced by similar and dissimilar distractors. Journal of Vision, 15(1), Article 4. doi:10.1167/15.1.4
10.
FreemanJ.SimoncelliE. P. (2011). Metamers of the ventral stream. Nature Neuroscience, 14, 1195–1201. doi:10.1038/nn.2889
11.
GorisR. L. T.SimoncelliE. P.MovshonJ. A. (2015). Origin and function of tuning diversity in macaque visual cortex. Neuron, 88, 819–831. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.10.009
12.
GreenwoodJ. A.BexP. J.DakinS. C. (2009). Positional averaging explains crowding with letter-like stimuli. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 106, 13130–13135. doi:10.1073/pnas.0901352106
13.
GreenwoodJ. A.BexP. J.DakinS. C. (2010). Crowding changes appearance. Current Biology, 20, 496–501. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2010.01.023
14.
GreenwoodJ. A.BexP. J.DakinS. C. (2012). Crowding follows the binding of relative position and orientation. Journal of Vision, 12(3), Article 18. doi:10.1167/12.3.18
15.
HarrisonW. J.BexP. J. (2015). A unifying model of orientation crowding in peripheral vision. Current Biology, 25, 3213–3219. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2015.10.052
16.
HuckaufA.HellerD. (2014). What various kinds of errors tell us about lateral masking effects. Visual Cognition, 9, 889–910. doi:10.1080/13506280143000548A
17.
KeshvariS.RosenholtzR. (2016). Pooling of continuous features provides a unifying account of crowding. Journal of Vision, 16(3), Article 39. doi:10.1167/16.3.39
18.
KimchiR.PirknerY. (2015). Multiple level crowding: Crowding at the object parts level and at the object configural level. Perception, 44, 1275–1292.
19.
KleinerM.BrainardD. H.PelliD. G. (2007). What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3?Perception, 36(ECVP Abstract Suppl.).
20.
LeviD. M. (2008). Crowding—An essential bottleneck for object recognition: A mini-review. Vision Research, 48, 635–654. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2007.12.009
21.
LeviD. M.KleinS. A. (1986). Sampling in spatial vision. Nature, 320, 360–362. doi:10.1038/320360a0
22.
ManassiM.WhitneyD. (2018). Multi-level crowding and the paradox of object recognition in clutter. Current Biology, 28, R127–R133. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2017.12.051
23.
MareschalI.MorganM. J.SolomonJ. A. (2010). Cortical distance determines whether flankers cause crowding or the tilt illusion. Journal of Vision, 10(8), Article 13. doi:10.1167/10.8.13
24.
MoreyR. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4, 61–64. doi:10.3758/s13414-012-0291-2
ParkesL.LundJ.AngelucciA.SolomonJ. A.MorganM. (2001). Compulsory averaging of crowded orientation signals in human vision. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 739–744.
27.
PelliD. G.PalomaresM.MajajN. J. (2004). Crowding is unlike ordinary masking: Distinguishing feature integration from detection. Journal of Vision, 4, 1136–1169. doi:10.1167/4.12.12
28.
PelliD. G.TillmanK. A. (2008). The uncrowded window of object recognition. Nature Neuroscience, 11, 1129–1135.
29.
PõderE.WagemansJ. (2007). Crowding with conjunctions of simple features. Journal of Vision, 7(2), Article 23. doi:10.1167/7.2.23
30.
RobsonJ. G.GrahamN. (1981). Probability summation and regional variation in contrast sensitivity across the visual field. Vision Research, 21, 409–418.
31.
ScolariM.KohnenA.BartonB.AwhE. (2007). Spatial attention, preview, and popout: Which factors influence critical spacing in crowded displays?Journal of Vision, 7(2), Article 7. doi:10.1167/7.2.7
32.
StrasburgerH.HarveyL. O.RentschlerI. (1991). Contrast thresholds for identification of numeric characters in direct and eccentric view. Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 495–508. doi:10.3758/BF03212183
33.
SuchowJ. W.BradyT. F.FougnieD.AlvarezG. A. (2013). Modeling visual working memory with the MemToolbox. Journal of Vision, 13(10), Article 9. doi:10.1167/13.10.9
34.
TreismanA.SchmidtH. (1982). Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 107–141. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(82)90006-8
35.
van den BergR.RoerdinkJ. B. T. M.CornelissenF. W. (2007). On the generality of crowding: Visual crowding in size, saturation, and hue compared to orientation. Journal of Vision, 7(2), Article 14. doi:10.1167/7.2.14
36.
van den BergR.RoerdinkJ. B. T. M.CornelissenF. W. (2010). A neurophysiologically plausible population code model for feature integration explains visual crowding. PLOS Computational Biology, 6(1), Article e1000646. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000646
37.
VulE.RichA. N. (2010). Independent sampling of features enables conscious perception of bound objects. Psychological Science, 21, 1168–1175. doi:10.1177/0956797610377341
38.
WhitneyD.LeviD. M. (2011). Visual crowding: A fundamental limit on conscious perception and object recognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 160–168. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.02.005
39.
YasharA.ChenJ.CarrascoM. (2015). Rapid and long-lasting reduction of crowding through training. Journal of Vision, 15(10), Article 15. doi:10.1167/15.10.15
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
