July 2013
Volume 13, Issue 9
Free
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   July 2013
Hemifield asymmetries in attention-based motion discrimination
Author Affiliations
  • Leslie Welch
    CLPS Dept, Brown University
  • Nestor Matthews
    Psychology Department, Denison University
Journal of Vision July 2013, Vol.13, 1296. doi:10.1167/13.9.1296
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Leslie Welch, Nestor Matthews; Hemifield asymmetries in attention-based motion discrimination. Journal of Vision 2013;13(9):1296. doi: 10.1167/13.9.1296.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Introduction: Previous research has shown performance asymmetries between right and left hemifields on attention-based tasks with a disadvantage for right visual field (RVF). For example, Battelli et al. (2007) reviewed evidence for worse performance in RVF on high-level motion tasks. Which aspects of spatiotemporal processing could be responsible for the performance difference? Method: Twenty-one Denison University undergraduates viewed pairs of Gabor targets within the same hemifield. Targets changed orientation either simultaneously or at various asynchronies. Temporal order judgments (TOJ) and simultaneity judgments occurred in separate blocks with the order counterbalanced across participants. A second group of twenty-three students viewed Gabor target pairs where one or two Gabors changed orientation, and their task was to indicate how many changed (1 vs 2 task). A third group of eighteen students viewed Gabor target pairs that flickered in counterphase, and they judged which Gabor flickered faster (TF discrimination). Results: TF discrimination and counting the number of orientation changes (1 or 2) thresholds were the same for RVF and LVF targets. Hidden formatting deleted. Delete this text! yes"> However, TOJ and simultaneity thresholds both showed worse performance for RVF targets compared with LVF targets. Conclusions: No hemifield difference in TF discrimination thresholds argues against coarser temporal sampling in RVF, suggesting no difference in quality of the front-end detectors. No difference in the 1 vs 2 task argues against hemifield differences in counting transients, suggesting simple comparisons are equivalent. Both simultaneity and TOJ require more information than the other tasks about when and where transients occurred, implicating a motion-attention stage.

Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2013

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×