Perpendicularity misjudgments caused by contextual stimulus elements

Bulatov, Aleksandr; Bulatova, Natalija; Surkys, Tadas

doi:10.1016/j.visres.2012.08.010

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The other explanation is that the luminance difference has led to attraction of the center line towards one of the outer lines, as we show in a control experiment ( Supplementary Material 1.2). Similar effects of attraction and repulsion caused by manipulation of luminance were previously found with Vernier (Badcock & Westheimer, 1985;Westheimer & McKee, 1977) and other stimuli (Bulatov, Bulatova, & Surkys, 2012;Morgan, Ward, & Cleary, 1994;Whitaker, Mcgraw, Pacey, & Barrett, 1996), strongly supporting the theory of spatial pooling by light. Learning with imagined and identical stimuli cannot be explained by classic neural network models, in which learning is purely stimulus driven (for a review, see Tsodyks & Gilbert, 2004).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Linking perceptual learning with identical stimuli to imagery perceptual learning

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perceptual learning is usually thought to be exclusively driven by the stimuli presented during training (and the underlying synaptic learning rules). In some way, we are slaves of our visual experiences. However, learning can occur even when no stimuli are presented at all. For example, Gabor contrast detection improves when only a blank screen is presented and observers are asked to imagine Gabor patches. Likewise, performance improves when observers are asked to imagine the nonexisting central line of a bisection stimulus to be offset either to the right or left. Hence, performance can improve without stimulus presentation. As shown in the auditory domain, performance can also improve when the very same stimulus is presented in all learning trials and observers were asked to discriminate differences which do not exist (observers were not told about the set up). Classic models of perceptual learning cannot handle these situations since they need proper stimulus presentation, i.e., variance in the stimuli, such as a left versus right offset in the bisection stimulus. Here, we show that perceptual learning with identical stimuli occurs in the visual domain, too. Second, we linked the two paradigms by telling observers that only the very same bisection stimulus was presented in all trials and asked them to imagine the central line to be offset either to the left or right. As in imagery learning, performance improved.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Linking perceptual learning with identical stimuli to imagery perceptual learning

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Illusion of extent evoked by closed two-dimensional shapes

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present study, we have tested the applicability of the computational model of centroid extraction to account for the data collected in experiments with stimuli comprising of closed two-dimensional shapes. The outlined or uniformly filled pie-shaped circular sectors (contextual distractors) were arranged according to the Brentano pattern, and three different stimulus parameters (either the radius or the central angle or the tilt angle of the sectors) were used as independent variables in different series of experiments. It was demonstrated that the model calculations adequately predict the variations of illusion magnitude shown by all the subjects for all independent variables and that there is no significant difference between the data obtained for stimuli with the outlined and uniformly filled distractors. A good correspondence between the computational and experimental data provides convincing evidence in support of the "centroid" explanation of illusions of extent of the Müller-Lyer type.

show abstract

Is lack of attention necessary for task-irrelevant perceptual learning?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perceptual learning can occur for a feature irrelevant to the training task, when it is sub-threshold and outside of the focus of attention (task-irrelevant perceptual learning, TIPL); however, TIPL does not occur when the task-irrelevant feature is supra-threshold. Here, we asked the question whether TIPL occurs when the task-irrelevant feature is sub-threshold but within the focus of spatial attention. We tested participants in three different discrimination tasks performed on a 3-dot stimulus: a horizontal Vernier task and a vertical bisection task (during pre- and post-training sessions), and a luminance task (during training). In Experiment 1 we found that attending to luminance differences within the same stimulus that contains a sub-threshold horizontal offset (an irrelevant feature during training) does not preclude TIPL, as revealed by an improvement in the Vernier task, but not in the bisection task. This conclusion was confirmed in Experiment 2, in which the 3-dot stimulus used during training did not include a horizontal offset.

show abstract

Perpendicularity misjudgments caused by contextual stimulus elements

Cited by 3 publications

References 29 publications

Linking perceptual learning with identical stimuli to imagery perceptual learning

Linking perceptual learning with identical stimuli to imagery perceptual learning

Illusion of extent evoked by closed two-dimensional shapes

Is lack of attention necessary for task-irrelevant perceptual learning?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About