» Articles » PMID: 21854800

Spatial-frequency Cutoff Requirements for Pattern Recognition in Central and Peripheral Vision

Overview
Journal Vision Res
Specialty Ophthalmology
Date 2011 Aug 23
PMID 21854800
Citations 21
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

It is well known that object recognition requires spatial frequencies exceeding some critical cutoff value. People with central scotomas who rely on peripheral vision have substantial difficulty with reading and face recognition. Deficiencies of pattern recognition in peripheral vision, might result in higher cutoff requirements, and may contribute to the functional problems of people with central-field loss. Here we asked about differences in spatial-cutoff requirements in central and peripheral vision for letter and face recognition. The stimuli were the 26 letters of the English alphabet and 26 celebrity faces. Each image was blurred using a low-pass filter in the spatial frequency domain. Critical cutoffs (defined as the minimum low-pass filter cutoff yielding 80% accuracy) were obtained by measuring recognition accuracy as a function of cutoff frequency (in cycles per object). Our data showed that critical cutoffs increased from central to peripheral vision by 20% for letter recognition and by 50% for face recognition. We asked whether these differences could be accounted for by central/peripheral differences in the contrast sensitivity function (CSF). We addressed this question by implementing an ideal-observer model which incorporates empirical CSF measurements and tested the model on letter and face recognition. The success of the model indicates that central/peripheral differences in the cutoff requirements for letter and face recognition can be accounted for by the information content of the stimulus limited by the shape of the human CSF, combined with a source of internal noise and followed by an optimal decision rule.

Citing Articles

Quantifying the Functional Relationship Between Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity Function.

Lu Z, Zhao Y, Lesmes L, Dorr M Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2024; 65(12):33.

PMID: 39436371 PMC: 11512569. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.65.12.33.


Improved modeling of human vision by incorporating robustness to blur in convolutional neural networks.

Jang H, Tong F Nat Commun. 2024; 15(1):1989.

PMID: 38443349 PMC: 10915141. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-45679-0.


Altered eye movements during reading under degraded viewing conditions: Background luminance, text blur, and text contrast.

Yu H, Shamsi F, Kwon M J Vis. 2022; 22(10):4.

PMID: 36069942 PMC: 9465940. DOI: 10.1167/jov.22.10.4.


Relative tuning of holistic face processing towards the fovea.

Canas-Bajo T, Whitney D Vision Res. 2022; 197:108049.

PMID: 35461170 PMC: 10101769. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2022.108049.


Learning to see again: Perceptual learning of simulated abnormal on- off-cell population responses in sighted individuals.

Esquenazi R, Meier K, Beyeler M, Boynton G, Fine I J Vis. 2021; 21(13):10.

PMID: 34935878 PMC: 8727313. DOI: 10.1167/jov.21.13.10.


References
1.
Virsu V, Rovamo J . Visual resolution, contrast sensitivity, and the cortical magnification factor. Exp Brain Res. 1979; 37(3):475-94. DOI: 10.1007/BF00236818. View

2.
Costen N, Parker D, Craw I . Spatial content and spatial quantisation effects in face recognition. Perception. 1994; 23(2):129-46. DOI: 10.1068/p230129. View

3.
Gauthier I, Tarr M . Unraveling mechanisms for expert object recognition: bridging brain activity and behavior. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2002; 28(2):431-46. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.28.2.431. View

4.
Bondarko V, Danilova M . What spatial frequency do we use to detect the orientation of a Landolt C?. Vision Res. 1997; 37(15):2153-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0042-6989(97)00024-2. View

5.
Wichmann F, Hill N . The psychometric function: I. Fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Percept Psychophys. 2002; 63(8):1293-313. DOI: 10.3758/bf03194544. View