December 2009
Volume 9, Issue 14
OSA Fall Vision Meeting Abstract  |   December 2009
Perceptual segregation of center and surround does not yield independent processing
Author Affiliations
  • Lynn A. Olzak
    Miami University
  • Patrick J. Hibbeler
    Miami University
  • Thomas D. Wickens
    Miami University
Journal of Vision December 2009, Vol.9, 48. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Lynn A. Olzak, Patrick J. Hibbeler, Thomas D. Wickens; Perceptual segregation of center and surround does not yield independent processing. Journal of Vision 2009;9(14):48. doi:

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

We have previously reported that center-surround stimuli produce asymmetric masking effects (surround masks center but not vice versa) when making fine spatial discriminations (spatial frequency or orientation) on sinusoidal grating patches when center and surround abut. Masking effects disappear upon introducing a tiny (4-minute) gap between center and surround, suggesting independent processing. We reported at VSS 2009 results of a concurrent response experiment with cues in both center and surround indicating that a standard bivariate Gaussian independence with separable criteria model was strongly rejected. Observers appeared to be using a two-stage decision process. Here, we ask whether introducing the tiny gap results in a better fit of the standard independence model. The stimuli were patches of 4 cpd vertical sinusoidal grating, arranged in a center-surround configuration (40 min center, 40 min width surround). A cue to discrimination was presented in both center and surround on each trial. Observers either made discriminations based on spatial frequency or on orientation, in different experiments. Four stimulus types were created and intermingled in a single session of 160 trials (40 of each stimulus): 1) both center and surround tilted left slightly (or were of slightly lower frequency), 2) both tilted right (or higher frequency), 3) center titled left (lower frequency), surround titled right higher frequency), and 4) center tilted right (higher frequency), surround tilted left (lower frequency). Observers made separate decisions on center and surround patches following each trial, rating their certainty that each component was tilted left or right on a 6-point rating scale. Despite apparent independent processing of center and surround observed when using the standard one-response masking paradigm with a gap, our concurrent response data again strongly reject the independence model. The data suggest that observers used a mixture of response strategies.

Olzak, L. A. Hibbeler, P. J. Wickens, T. D. (2009). Perceptual segregation of center and surround does not yield independent processing [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 9(14):48, 48a,, doi:10.1167/9.14.48. [CrossRef]

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.