In visual crowding, the perception of an element deteriorates in the presence of clutter. The mechanism(s) underlying crowding have been controversially discussed for decades. Whereas it is well established that grouping determines which elements are prone to interference, it is unclear what causes interference, for example, feature pooling, lateral inhibition, or substitution. To address this question, we presented an array of lines of which the central line was offset (vernier offset). Observers were asked to report this offset. The flanking lines were straight or had the same (pro-vernier, PV) or opposite (anti-vernier, AV) offset direction compared to the target vernier. Participants’ performance was hardly influenced by a single PV contrary to what is expected both from pooling and substitution mechanisms, which predict increased performance. When the number of pro- as well as AVs increased, performance significantly increased or decreased, respectively. When the flankers were presented closer to the fovea, the influence of the flankers was larger than when presented further away, contrary to the well-known in-out anisotropy. We show that there are processes at work, which can hardly be captured by any existing model of crowding.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
8.
BoumaH. (1970). Interaction effects in parafoveal letter recognition. Nature, 226(5241), 177–178.
9.
BoumaH. (1973). Visual interference in the parafoveal recognition of initial and final letters of words. Vision Research, 13(4), 767–782.
10.
BoumaH.AndriessenJ. J. (1968). Perceived orientation of isolated line segments. Vision Research, 8(5), 493–507.
ChicherovV.HerzogM. H. (2015). Targets but not flankers are suppressed in crowding as revealed by EEG frequency tagging. NeuroImage, 119, 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.06.047
DakinS.CassJ.GreenwoodJ., et al. (2010). Probabilistic, positional averaging predicts object-level crowding effects with letter-like stimuli. Journal of Vision, 10(10), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1167/10.10.14
18.
DoerigA.BornetA.RosenholtzR., et al. (2019). Beyond Bouma’s window: How to explain global aspects of crowding?PLOS Computational Biology, 15, e1006580. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006580
19.
EhlersH. (1936). The movements of the eyes during reading. Acta Ophthalmologica, 14, 56–63.
20.
EhlersH. (1953). Clinical testing of visual acuity. AMA Archives of Ophthalmology, 49, 431–434.
21.
EsterE. F.KleeD.AwhE. (2014). Visual crowding cannot be wholly explained by feature pooling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(3), 1022–1033. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035377
22.
EsterE. F.ZilberE.SerencesJ. T. (2015). Substitution and pooling in visual crowding induced by similar and dissimilar distractors. Journal of Vision, 15(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1167/15.1.4
23.
FreemanJ.ChakravarthiR.PelliD. G. (2012). Substitution and pooling in crowding. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 379–396. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-011-0229-0
24.
FreemanJ.SimoncelliE. P. (2011). Metamers of the ventral stream. Nature Neuroscience, 14(9), 1195–1201.
GreenwoodJ.BexP.DakinS. (2009). Positional averaging explains crowding with letter-like stimuli. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 106, 12130–13135. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0901352106
27.
HarrisonW. J.BexP. J. (2015). A unifying model of orientation crowding in peripheral vision. Current Biology, 25(24), 3213–3219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.10.052
28.
HerzogM. H.ManassiM. (2015). Uncorking the bottleneck of crowding: A fresh look at object recognition. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 1, 86–93.
29.
HerzogM. H.ThunellE.ÖgmenH. (2016). Putting low-level vision into global context: Why vision cannot be reduced to basic circuits. Vision Research, 126, 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2015.09.009
30.
HubelD. H.WieselT. N. (1962). Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in cat’s visual cortex. The Journal of Physiology, 160, 106–154. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1962.sp006837
31.
HuckaufA.HellerD. (2002). What various kinds of errors tell us about lateral masking effects. Visual Cognition, 9(7), 889–910.
32.
JimenezM.KimchiR.YasharA. (2022). Mixture-modeling approach reveals global and local processes in visual crowding. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 6726. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10685-z
33.
JohnsonP. C. (2014). Extension of Nakagawa & Schielzeth’s R2GLMM to random slopes models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 5(9), 944–946. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12225
34.
KleinerM.BrainardD.PelliD. (2007). What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3?. Perception, 36, 1–16.
35.
KorteW. (1923). Über die Gestaltauffassung im indirekten Sehen. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 93, 17–82.
LivneT.SagiD. (2007). Configuration influence on crowding. Journal of Vision, 7(2), 4. https://doi.org/10.1167/7.2.4
38.
MalaniaM.HerzogM. H.WestheimerG. (2007). Grouping of contextual elements that affect vernier thresholds. Journal of Vision, 7(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1167/7.2.1
39.
ManassiM.HermensF.FrancisG., et al. (2015). Release of crowding by pattern completion. Journal of Vision, 15, 16. https://doi.org/10.1167/15.8.16
40.
ManassiM.LonchamptS.ClarkeA., et al. (2016). What crowding can tell us about object representations. Journal of Vision, 16(3), 35. https://doi.org/10.1167/16.3.35
41.
ManassiM.SayimB.HerzogM. H. (2012). Grouping, pooling, and when bigger is better in visual crowding. Journal of Vision, 12(10), 13. https://doi.org/10.1167/12.10.13
42.
ManassiM.SayimB.HerzogM. H. (2013). When crowding of crowding leads to uncrowding. Journal of Vision, 13(13), 10. https://doi.org/10.1167/13.13.10
43.
MotterB. C.SimoniD. A. (2007). The roles of cortical image separation and size in active visual search performance. Journal of Vision, 7(2), 6, 1–15.
44.
NakagawaS.JohnsonP. C.SchielzethH. (2017). The coefficient of determination R2 and intra-class correlation coefficient from generalized linear mixed-effects models revisited and expanded. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 14(134), 20170213.
45.
NakagawaS.SchielzethH. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4(2), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x
ParkesL.LundJ.AngelucciA., et al. (2001). Compulsory averaging of crowded orientation signals in human vision. Nature neuroscience, 4(7), 739–744.
48.
PelliD. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 437–442.
49.
PelliD. G. (2008). Crowding: A cortical constraint on object recognition. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 18(4), 445–451.
50.
PetrovY.MeleshkevichO. (2011). Asymmetries and idiosyncratic hot spots in crowding. Vision Research, 51(10), 1117–1123.
51.
PetrovY.PoppleA. V.McKeeS. P. (2007). Crowding and surround suppression: Not to be confused. Journal of Vision, 7(2), 12. https://doi.org/10.1167/7.2.12
52.
PõderE.WagemansJ. (2007). Crowding with conjunctions of simple features. Journal of Vision, 7(2), 23.
53.
R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Vienna, Austria). R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
54.
RosenholtzR.YuD.KeshvariS. (2019). Challenges to pooling models of crowding: Implications for visual mechanisms. Journal of Vision, 19(7), 15. https://doi.org/10.1167/19.7.15
55.
SaarelaT. P.HerzogM. H. (2009). Size tuning and contextual modulation of backward contrast masking. Journal of Vision, 9, 21. https://doi.org/10.1167/9.11.21
56.
SaarelaT. P.SayimB.WestheimerG., et al. (2009). Global stimulus configuration modulates crowding. Journal of Visualization, 9, 5. https://doi.org/10.1167/9.2.5
SayimB.ManassiM.HerzogM. (2014). How color, regularity, and good Gestalt determine backward masking. Journal of Vision, 14, 8. https://doi.org/10.1167/14.7.8
59.
SayimB.WestheimerG.HerzogM. H. (2008). Contrast polarity, chromaticity, and stereoscopic depth modulate contextual interactions in vernier acuity. Journal of Vision, 8(8), 12. https://doi.org/10.1167/8.8.12
SayimB.WestheimerG.HerzogM. H. (2011). Quantifying target conspicuity in contextual modulation by visual search. Journal of Vision, 11, 6. https://doi.org/10.1167/11.1.6
62.
StrasburgerH. (2005). Unfocussed spatial attention underlies the crowding effect in indirect form vision. Journal of Vision, 5(11), 8. https://doi.org/10.1167/5.11.8
63.
StrasburgerH. (2020). Seven myths on crowding and peripheral vision. i-Perception, 11(3), 2041669520913052.
64.
StrasburgerH.HarveyL. O.RentschlerI. (1991). Contrast thresholds for identification of numeric characters in direct and eccentric view. Perception & Psychophysics, 49(6), 495–508.
65.
StrasburgerH.MalaniaM. (2013). Source confusion is a major cause of crowding. Journal of Vision, 13(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.1167/13.1.24
66.
StuartJ. A.BurianH. M. (1962). A study of separation difficulty: Its relationship to visual acuity in normal and amblyopic eyes. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 53(3), 471–477.
67.
TaylorM. M.CreelmanC. D. (1967). PEST: Efficient estimates on probability functions. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 41(4A), 782–787. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1910407
68.
ToetA.LeviD. M. (1992). The two-dimensional shape of spatial interaction zones in the parafovea. Vision Research, 32, 1349–1357.
69.
Van den BergR.CornelissenF. W.RoerdinkJ. B. (2009). A crowding model of visual clutter. Journal of Vision, 9(4), 24. https://doi.org/10.1167/9.4.24
70.
Van den BergR.JohnsonA.AntonA. M., et al. (2012). Comparing crowding in human and ideal observers. Journal of Vision, 12(6), 13. https://doi.org/10.1167/12.6.13
71.
VickeryT. J.ShimW. M.ChakravarthiR., et al. (2009). Supercrowding: Weakly masking a target expands the range of crowding. Journal of Vision, 9(2), 12.
72.
WhitneyD.LeviD. M. (2011). Visual crowding: A fundamental limit on conscious perception and object recognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 160–168.
73.
WichmannF. A.HillN. J. (2001). The psychometric function: I. Fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Perception & Psychophysics, 63(8), 1293–1313.
74.
WolfordG.ChambersL. (1983). Lateral masking as a function of spacing. Perception & Psychophysics, 33(2), 129–138.
75.
YasharA.CarrascoM. (2025). When periphery rules: Enhanced sampling weights of the visual periphery in crowding across dimensions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 32(2), 779–790. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-024-02580-7
76.
YasharA.WuX.ChenJ., et al. (2019). Crowding and binding: Not all feature dimensions behave in the same way. Psychological Science, 30(10), 1533–1546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619870779
77.
YeotikarN. S.KhuuS. K.AsperL. J., et al. (2011). Configuration specificity of crowding in peripheral vision. Vision Research, 51(11), 1239–1248.
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.
