Human visual performance changes dramatically both across (eccentricity) and around (polar angle) the visual field. Performance is better at the fovea, decreases with eccentricity, and is better along the horizontal than vertical meridian and along the lower than the upper vertical meridian. However, all neurophysiological and virtually all behavioral studies of cortical magnification have investigated eccentricity effects without considering polar angle. Most performance differences due to eccentricity are eliminated when stimulus size is cortically magnified (M-scaled) to equate the size of its cortical representation in primary visual cortex (V1). But does cortical magnification underlie performance differences around the visual field? Here, to assess contrast sensitivity, human adult observers performed an orientation discrimination task with constant stimulus size at different locations as well as when stimulus size was M-scaled according to stimulus eccentricity and polar angle location. We found that although M-scaling stimulus size eliminates differences across eccentricity, it does not eliminate differences around the polar angle. This finding indicates that limits in contrast sensitivity across eccentricity and around the visual field are mediated by different anatomical and computational constraints.

Performance changes dramatically both across (eccentricity) and around (polar angle) the visual field. All neurophysiological and virtually all behavioral studies of cortical magnification investigate eccentricity effects without considering polar angle. But, does cortical magnification underlie differences around the visual field? We magnified stimulus size according to eccentricity and polar angle to equate their cortical representation. We found that magnifying the stimulus eliminates differences across –but not around– the visual field.

No abstract

No abstract