There is reason to believe that the difference between central and peripheral vision may not be due exclusively to differences in acuity. This idea was tested, with four subjects, by lowering foveal acuity to that of 40° eccentricity and then comparing central and peripheral pattern perception. It was hypothesized that, because there were qualitative differences in the two systems, central pattern perception would still be superior to peripheral pattern perception. The results did not support the notion that there are differences which cannot be accounted for by acuity. Differences were minimal (statistically nonsignificant), and slight trends suggested peripheral superiority.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BoumaH.Visual recognition of lower-case letters. Vision Research, 1971, 11, 459–474.
2.
BoumaH.LegeinCH. P.Foveal and parafoveal recognition of letters and words by dyslexies and by average readers. Neuropsychologic1977, 15, 69–80.
3.
ButterC. M.Impairments in selective attention to visual stimuli in monkeys with inferotemporal and lateral striate lesions. Brain Research, 1969, 12, 374–383.
4.
ButterC. M.Detection of masked patterns in monkeys with inferotemporal, striate or dorsolateral frontal lesions. Neuropsychologia, 1972, 10, 241–243.
5.
ClelandB. G.DubinM. W.LevickW. R.Sustained and transient neurons in the cat retina and lateral geniculate nucleus. Journal of Physiology, 1971, 217, 473–497.
6.
CornwellP. R.OvermanW.Incomplete damage of the visual cortex disrupts the discrimination of hidden figures by cats. Paper presented at meetings of the Eastern Psychological Association, Philadelphia, March, 1974.
7.
EdwardsD. C.GoolkasianP. A.Peripheral vision location and kinds of complex processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974, 162, 244–249.
8.
HeldR.Dissociation of visual functions by deprivation and rearrangement. Psychologische Forschung, 1968, 31, 338–348.
9.
HeldR.Two modes of processing spatially distributed visual stimulation. In SchmittF. O. (Ed.), Neurosciences: Second study program. New York: Rockefeller Univer. Press, 1970. Pp. 317–324.
10.
HeldR.Vision and movement. In PierceJ. R.LeveneJ. R. (Eds.), Visual sciences. Bloomington: Indiana Univer. Press, 1971. Pp. 197–204.
11.
HumphreyN. K.Vision in a monkey without a striate cortex: A case study. Perception, 1974, 3, 241–256.
12.
JohnsonC. A.KeltnerJ. L.BalestreryF.Effects of target size and eccentricity on visual detection and resolution. Vision Research, 1978, 18, 1217–1222.
13.
JohnsonC. A.LeibowitzH. W.Practice, refractive error and feedback as factors influencing peripheral motion thresholds. Perception & Psychophysics, 1974, 15, 276–280.
14.
JohnsonC. A.LeibowitzH. W.MillodotM.LaMontA.Peripheral visual acuity and refractive error: Evidence for “two visual systems?”Perception & Psychophysics, 1976, 20, 460–462.
15.
KerrJ. L.Visual resolution in the periphery. Perception & Psychophysics, 1971, 9, 375–378.
16.
KillackyH.WilsonM.DiamondI. T.Further studies of the striate and extrastriate visual cortex in the tree shrew. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1972, 81, 45–63.
17.
KleitmanN.BlierZ. A.Color and form discrimination in the periphery of the retina. American Journal of Psychology, 1928, 85, 178–190.
