Visual processing varies dramatically across the visual field. These differences start in the retina and continue all the way to the visual cortex. Despite these differences in processing, the perceptual experience of humans is remarkably stable and continuous across the visual field. Research in the last decade has shown that processing in peripheral and foveal vision is not independent, but is more directly connected than previously thought. We address three core questions on how peripheral and foveal vision interact, and review recent findings on potentially related phenomena that could provide answers to these questions. First, how is the processing of peripheral and foveal signals related during fixation? Peripheral signals seem to be processed in foveal retinotopic areas to facilitate peripheral object recognition, and foveal information seems to be extrapolated toward the periphery to generate a homogeneous representation of the environment. Second, how are peripheral and foveal signals re-calibrated? Transsaccadic changes in object features lead to a reduction in the discrepancy between peripheral and foveal appearance. Third, how is peripheral and foveal information stitched together across saccades? Peripheral and foveal signals are integrated across saccadic eye movements to average percepts and to reduce uncertainty. Together, these findings illustrate that peripheral and foveal processing are closely connected, mastering the compromise between a large peripheral visual field and high resolution at the fovea. Brief overview of differences between peripheral and foveal vision Although the human eye is often compared to a photographic camera, processing across the visual field is not homogeneous like in a camera film or a digital sensor. First, there are gaps in sensory information due to several anatomical properties of the eye: (a) there are no photoreceptors in the optic disc, where the axons of the retinal ganglion cells exit the eyeball: this leads to a blind spot (Mariotte, 1740, cited after Ferree & Rand, 1912; Grzybowski & Aydin, 2007). (b) The center of the retina contains only cone, but no rod photoreceptors (Schultze, 1866; Oesterberg, 1935; Curcio, Sloan, Kalina, & Hendrickson, 1990), leading to a central scotoma under dark illumination conditions. (c) Because photoreceptors are located on the back side of the retina, away from the light, blood vessels cast shadows on them (Purkinje, 1819; von Helmholtz, 1867; Evans, 1927; Adams & Horton, 2002). The second striking difference to a photographic camera is that the processing of visual signals varies quite dramatically across the visual field. Here, an important distinction arises between the center of the visual field, called the fovea, and the rest, called the periphery. 1 We only briefly highlight some of the key differences in processing and perception between the fovea and the periphery because these have been reviewed in detail elsewhere

With every saccade, humans must reconcile the low resolution peripheral information available before a saccade, with the high resolution foveal information acquired after the saccade. While research has shown that we are able to integrate peripheral and foveal vision in a near-optimal manner, it is still unclear which mechanisms may underpin this important perceptual process. One potential mechanism that may moderate this integration process is visual attention. Pre-saccadic attention is a well documented phenomenon, whereby visual attention shifts to the location of an upcoming saccade before the saccade is executed. While it plays an important role in other peri-saccadic processes such as predictive remapping, the role of attention in the integration process is as yet unknown. This study aimed to determine whether the presentation of an attentional distractor during a saccade impaired trans-saccadic integration, and to measure the time-course of this impairment. Results showed that presenting an attentional distractor impaired integration performance both before saccade onset, and during the saccade, in selected subjects who showed integration in the absence of a distractor. This suggests that visual attention may be a mechanism that facilitates trans-saccadic integration.

Saccadic eye movements alter the visual processing of objects of interest by bringing them from the periphery, where there is only low-resolution vision, to the high-resolution fovea. Evidence suggests that people are able to achieve trans-saccadic integration in a near-optimal manner; however the mechanisms underlying integration are still unclear. Visual working memory (VWM) is sustained across a saccade, and it has been suggested that this memory resource is used to store and compare the pre- and post- saccadic percepts. This study directly tested the hypothesis that VWM is necessary for optimal trans-saccadic integration, by introducing memory load during a saccade, and testing subsequent integration performance on feature similar and dissimilar stimuli. Results show that integration performance was impaired when there was an additional memory task. Additionally, performance on the memory task was affected by feature-specific integration stimuli. Our results suggest that VWM supports the integration of pre- and post- saccadic stimuli because integration performance is impaired under VWM load.

No abstract

Across saccades, humans can integrate the low-resolution presaccadic information of an upcoming saccade target with the high-resolution postsaccadic information. There is converging evidence to suggest that transsaccadic integration occurs at the saccade target. However, given divergent evidence on the spatial specificity of related mechanisms such as attention, visual working memory, and remapping, it is unclear whether integration is also possible at locations other than the saccade target. We tested the spatial profile of transsaccadic integration, by testing perceptual performance at six locations around the saccade target and between the saccade target and initial fixation. Results show that integration benefits do not differ between the saccade target and surrounding locations. Transsaccadic integration benefits are not specific to the saccade target and can occur at other locations when they are behaviorally relevant, although there is a trend for worse performance for the location above initial fixation compared with those in the direction of the saccade. This suggests that transsaccadic integration may be a more general mechanism used to reconcile task-relevant pre- and postsaccadic information at attended locations other than the saccade target.NEW & NOTEWORTHY This study shows that integration of pre- and postsaccadic information across saccades is not restricted to the saccade target. We found performance benefits of transsaccadic integration at attended locations other than the saccade target, and these benefits did not differ from those found at the saccade target. This suggests that transsaccadic integration may be a more general mechanism used to reconcile pre- and postsaccadic information at task-relevant locations.