On Why Objects Appear Smaller in the Visual Periphery

Abstract

An object appears smaller in the periphery than in the center of the visual field. In two experiments (N = 24), we demonstrated that visuospatial attention contributes substantially to this perceptual distortion. Participants judged the size of central and peripheral target objects after a transient, exogenous cue directed their attention to either the central or the peripheral location. Peripheral target objects were judged to be smaller following a central cue, whereas this effect disappeared completely when the peripheral target was cued. This outcome suggests that objects appear smaller in the visual periphery not only because of the structural properties of the visual system but also because of a lack of spatial attention.

Keywords

attention visual perception

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anstis

(1998). Picturing peripheral acuity. Perception, 27, 817–825.

Anton-Erxleben

Abrams

Carrasco

(2010). Evaluating comparative and equality judgments in contrast perception: Attention alters appearance. Journal of Vision, 10(11), Article 6. doi:10.1167/10.11.6

Anton-Erxleben

Carrasco

(2013). Attentional enhancement of spatial resolution: Linking behavioral and neurophysiological evidence. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 188–200.

Anton-Erxleben

Heinrich

Treue

(2007). Attention changes perceived size of moving visual patterns. Journal of Vision, 7(11), Article 5. doi:10.1167/7.11.5

Anton-Erxleben

Stephan

V. S.

Treue

(2009). Attention reshapes center-surround receptive field structure in macaque cortical area MT. Cerebral Cortex, 19, 2466–2478.

Baldwin

Burleigh

Repperell

Ruta

(2016). The perceived size and shape of objects in peripheral vision. i-Perception, 7(4). doi:10.1177/2041669516661900

Baruch

Yeshurun

(2014). Attentional attraction of receptive fields can explain spatial and temporal effects of attention. Visual Cognition, 22, 704–736.

Carrasco

Barbot

(2014). How attention affects spatial resolution. In Bargmann

Bavelier

Sejnowski

Stewart

Stillman

(Eds.), Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology: Volume LXXIX. Cognition (pp. 149–160). Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. doi:10.1101/sqb.2014.79.024687

Carrasco

Barbot

(2019). Spatial attention alters visual appearance. Current Opinion in Psychology, 29, 56–64.

10.

Carrasco

Ling

Read

(2004). Attention alters appearance. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 308–313.

11.

Carrasco

Williams

P. E.

Yeshurun

(2002). Covert attention increases spatial resolution with or without masks: Support for signal enhancement. Journal of Vision, 2, 467–479.

12.

Cousineau

(2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1, 42–45.

13.

Cutrone

E. K.

Heeger

D. J.

Carrasco

(2018). On spatial attention and its field size on the repulsion effect. Journal of Vision, 18(6), Article 8. doi:10.1167/18.6.8.

14.

Gobell

Carrasco

(2005). Attention alters the appearance of spatial frequency and gap size. Psychological Science, 16, 644–651.

15.

Kirsch

Heitling

Kunde

(2018). Changes in the size of attentional focus modulate the apparent object’s size. Vision Research, 153, 82–90.

16.

Klein

B. P.

Paffen

C. L. E.

te Pas

S. F.

Dumoulin

S. O.

(2016). Predicting bias in perceived position using attention field models. Journal of Vision, 16(7), Article 15. doi:10.1167/16.7.15

17.

Liu

Abrams

Carrasco

(2009). Voluntary attention enhances contrast appearance. Psychological Science, 20, 354–362.

18.

Megna

Rocchi

Baldassi

(2012). Spatio-temporal templates of transient attention revealed by classification images. Vision Research, 54, 39–48.

19.

Moutsiana

de Haas

Papageorgiou

van Dijk

J. A.

Balraj

Greenwood

J. A.

Schwarzkopf

D. S.

(2016). Cortical idiosyncrasies predict the perception of object size. Nature Communications, 7, Article 12110. doi:10.1038/ncomms12110

20.

Newsome

L. R.

(1972). Visual angle and apparent size of objects in peripheral vision. Perception & Psychophysics, 12, 300–304.

21.

Schneider

Ehrlich

D. J.

Stein

Flaum

Mangel

(1978). Changes in the apparent lengths of lines as a function of degree of retinal eccentricity. Perception, 7, 215–223.

22.

Schneider

Eschman

Zuccolotto

(2012). E-Prime 2.0 reference guide manual. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.

23.

Suzuki

Cavanagh

(1997). Focused attention distorts visual space: An attentional repulsion effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 443–463.

24.

Thompson

J. G.

Fowler

K. A.

(1980). The effects of retinal eccentricity and orientation on perceived length. The Journal of General Psychology, 103, 227–232.

25.

von Helmholtz

. (1867). Handbuch der physiologischen Optic [Handbook of psychological optics]. Leipzig, Germany: Leopold Voss.

26.

Womelsdorf

Anton-Erxleben

Treue

(2008). Receptive field shift and shrinkage in macaque middle temporal area through attentional gain modulation. The Journal of Neuroscience, 28, 8934–8944.

27.

Zychaluk

Foster

D. H.

(2009). Model-free estimation of the psychometric function. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 71, 1414–1425.

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.

0.00 MB

1.29 MB