The contributions of central and peripheral vision to scene-gist recognition with a 180° visual field

Abstract

We investigated the relative contributions of central versus peripheral vision in scene-gist recognition with panoramic 1808 scenes. Experiment 1 used the window/scotoma paradigm of Larson and Loschky (2009). We replicated their findings that peripheral vision was more important for rapid scene categorization, while central vision was more efficient, but those effects were greatly magnified. For example, in comparing our critical radius (which produced equivalent performance with mutually exclusive central and peripheral image regions) to that of Larson and Loschky, our critical radius of 108 had a ratio of central to peripheral image area that was 10 times smaller. Importantly, we found different functional relationships between the radius of centrally versus peripherally presented imagery (or the proportion of centrally versus peripherally presented image area) and scenecategorization sensitivity. For central vision, stimulus discriminability was an inverse function of image radius, while for peripheral vision the relationship was essentially linear. In Experiment 2, we tested the photographic-bias hypothesis that the greater efficiency of central vision for rapid scene categorization was due to more diagnostic information in the center of photographs. We factorially compared the effects of the eccentricity from which imagery was sampled versus the eccentricity at which imagery was presented. The presentation eccentricity effect was roughly 3 times greater than the sampling eccentricity effect, showing that the central-vision efficiency advantage was primarily due to the greater sensitivity of central vision. We discuss our results in terms of the eccentricitydependent neurophysiology of vision and discuss implications for computationally modeling rapid scene categorization.

Effects of Transient Loss of Vision on Head and Eye Movements during Visual Search in a Virtual Environment

“…As a result visual information quality drops as a function of the eccentricity to the fovea [ 8 , 9 ]. Despite its limitations, peripheral vision helps build a global representation of scenes [ 10 , 11 ]. The work of Boucart et al [ 11 , 12 , 13 ] served to demonstrate that scene categorization stays above chance-level even at high visual eccentricities (70 deg.…”

The Scene Perception & Event Comprehension Theory (SPECT) Applied to Visual Narratives

“…However, Laubrock et al (, p. 249) point out that comic readers can likely recognize the gist of the background within their first fixation of a comic panel using their peripheral vision (i.e., without fixating it). Specifically, studies have shown that, within a single fixation on a photograph, viewers can accurately categorize the scene background (e.g., beach vs. mountain vs. street vs. bedroom) using only their peripheral vision (Boucart, Moroni, Thibaut, Szaffarczyk, & Greene, ; Larson & Loschky, ; Loschky, Szaffarczyk, Beugnet, Young, & Boucart, ). Thus, it is currently unclear whether the category of a background or of a character is processed earlier while viewing visual narratives.…”

Semantic and Physical Properties of Peripheral Vision Are Used for Scene Categorization in Central Vision

“…Several studies have highlighted the importance of peripheral vision during the categorization of scenes (Trouilloud et al, 2020;Loschky, Szaffarczyk, Beugnet, Young, & Boucart, 2019;Lukavsky, 2019;Geuzebroek & van den Berg, 2018;Boucart, Moroni, Thibaut, Szaffarczyk, & Greene, 2013;Larson & Loschky, 2009). The categorization of scenes remains possible even in far peripheral vision (70°retinal eccentricity; Boucart et al, 2013).…”