Retinal Sensitivity in the Region of the Blind Spot*

Wolf, Ernst; Morandi, Anthony J.

doi:10.1364/josa.52.000806

Cited by 12 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We report all data combined over all experiments. In line with previous studies (Wolf and Morandi, 1962; Ehinger et al, 2015), the left and right blind spots were located horizontally at −15.52° (SD = 0.57° CI:[−15.69°,−15.36°]) and 15.88° (SD = 0.61° CI:[15.70°,16.07°]) from the fixation cross. The mean calibrated diameter was 4.82° (SD = 0.45° CI:[4.69°,4.95°]) for the left and 4.93° (SD = 0.46° CI:[4.79°,5.07°]) for the right blind spot.…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 91%

“…It is still unclear whether this goes over and beyond the aforementioned temporal/nasal bias. Unfortunately, this explanation runs into the problem that the sensitivity in the region corresponding to the blind spot in the other eye is also enhanced compared to regions at similar eccentricities (Wolf and Morandi, 1962; Midgley, 1998). This suggests that differences between the eyes in the area around the blind spot should be the smallest within the contrast between temporal and nasal retina.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Humans treat unreliable filled-in percepts as more real than veridical ones

Ehinger

Häusser

Ossandón

et al. 2017

eLife

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans often evaluate sensory signals according to their reliability for optimal decision-making. However, how do we evaluate percepts generated in the absence of direct input that are, therefore, completely unreliable? Here, we utilize the phenomenon of filling-in occurring at the physiological blind-spots to compare partially inferred and veridical percepts. Subjects chose between stimuli that elicit filling-in, and perceptually equivalent ones presented outside the blind-spots, looking for a Gabor stimulus without a small orthogonal inset. In ambiguous conditions, when the stimuli were physically identical and the inset was absent in both, subjects behaved opposite to optimal, preferring the blind-spot stimulus as the better example of a collinear stimulus, even though no relevant veridical information was available. Thus, a percept that is partially inferred is paradoxically considered more reliable than a percept based on external input. In other words: Humans treat filled-in inferred percepts as more real than veridical ones.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21761.001

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Humans treat unreliable filled-in percepts as more real than veridical ones

Ehinger

Häusser

Ossandón

et al. 2017

eLife

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Detection of border points uses a dot or point visual stimulus to probe the borders of the blind spot. It is the most popular strategy used in blind spot research [9,[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43]. The typical method is for the observer or experimenter to move a small dot stimulus forth and back across the blind spot borders, and for the observer to report when it perceptually "disappears" (into the blind spot), and when it "appears" (from out of the blind spot).…”

Section: Detection Of Border Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Did you see it? A Python tool for psychophysical assessment of the human blind spot

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The blind spot is a region in the temporal monocular visual field in humans, which corresponds to a physiological scotoma within the nasal hemi-retina. This region has no photoreceptors, so is insensitive to visual stimulation. There is no corresponding perceptual scotoma because the visual stimulation is “filled-in” by the visual system. Investigations of visual perception in and around the blind spot allow us to investigate this filling-in process. However, because the location and size of the blind spot are individually variable, experimenters must first map the blind spot in every observer. We present an open-source tool, which runs in Psychopy software, to estimate the location and size of the blind spot psychophysically. The tool will ideally be used with an Eyelink eye-tracker (SR Research), but it can also run in standalone mode. Here, we explain the rationale for the tool and demonstrate its validity in normally-sighted observers. We develop a detailed map of the blind spot in one observer. Then, in a group of 12 observers, we propose a more efficient, pragmatic method to define a “safe zone” within the blind spot, for which the experimenter can be fully confident that visual stimuli will not be seen. Links are provided to this open-source tool and a user manual.

show abstract

“…Detection of border points uses a dot or point visual stimulus to probe the borders of the blind spot. It is the most popular strategy used in blind spot research (Araragi, 2011; Araragi et al, 2009; Araragi & Nakamizo, 2008; Armaly, 1969; Azzi et al, 2015; Baek et al, 2012; Berens, 1923; Chen et al, 2017; Dilks et al, 2009; Dolderer et al, 2006; Li et al, 2014; Maus & Nijhawan, 2008; Maus & Whitney, 2016; Miller et al, 2015; Miyamoto & Murakami, 2015; Revina & Maus, 2019; Safran et al, 1993a, 1993b; Spillmann et al, 2006; Wolf & Morandi, 1962). The typical method is for the observer or experimenter to move a small dot stimulus forth and back across the blind spot borders, and for the observer to report when it perceptually “disappears” (into the blind spot), and when it “appears” (away from the blind spot).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Did you see it? A Python tool for psychophysical assessment of the human blind spot

Xiao

Silson

McIntosh

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The blind spot is a region in the temporal monocular visual field in humans, which corresponds to a physiological scotoma within the nasal hemi-retina. This region has no photoreceptors, so is insensitive to visual stimulation. There is no corresponding perceptual scotoma because the visual stimulation is "filled-in" by the visual system. Investigations of visual perception in and around the blind spot allow us to investigate this filling-in process. However, because the location and size of the blind spot are individually variable, experimenters must first map the blind spot in every observer. We present an open-source tool, which runs in Psychopy software, to estimate the location and size of the blind spot psychophysically. The tool will ideally be used with an Eyelink eye-tracker (SR Research), but it can also run in standalone mode. Here, we explain the rationale for the tool and demonstrate its validity in normally-sighted observers. We develop a detailed map of the blind spot in one observer. Then, in a group of 12 observers, we propose a more efficient, pragmatic method to define a "safe zone" within the blind spot, for which the experimenter can be fully confident that visual stimuli will not be seen. Links are provided to this open-source tool and a manual.

show abstract

Retinal Sensitivity in the Region of the Blind Spot*

Cited by 12 publications

References 16 publications

Humans treat unreliable filled-in percepts as more real than veridical ones

Humans treat unreliable filled-in percepts as more real than veridical ones

Did you see it? A Python tool for psychophysical assessment of the human blind spot

Did you see it? A Python tool for psychophysical assessment of the human blind spot

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About