Volume 7, Number 10, Article 12, Pages 1-7 doi:10.1167/7.10.12 http://journalofvision.org/7/10/12/ ISSN 1534-7362
Peripheral vision: Good for biological motion, bad for signal noise segregation?
Benjamin Thompson
McGill Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
[home] [e-mail]
Bruce C. Hansen
McGill Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
[home] [e-mail]
Robert F. Hess
McGill Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
[home] [e-mail]
Nikolaus F. Troje
Department of Psychology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
[home] [e-mail]
Abstract

Biological motion perception, having both evolutionary and social importance, is performed by the human visual system with a high degree of sensitivity. It is unclear whether peripheral vision has access to the specialized neural systems underlying biological motion perception; however, given the motion component, one would expect peripheral vision to be, if not specialized, at least highly accurate in perceiving biological motion. Here we show that the periphery can indeed perceive biological motion. However, the periphery suffers from an inability to detect biological motion signals when they are embedded in dynamic visual noise. We suggest that this peripheral deficit is not due to biological motion perception per se, but to signal/noise segregation.

View full-text

History
Received February 13, 2007; published July 25, 2007
Citation
Thompson, B., Hansen, B. C., Hess, R. F., & Troje, N. F. (2007). Peripheral vision: Good for biological motion, bad for signal noise segregation? Journal of Vision, 7(10):12, 1-7, http://journalofvision.org/7/10/12/, doi:10.1167/7.10.12.
Keywords
biological motion, peripheral vision, noise segregation
Downloads
341 Total.
 
Search
for related articles by these authors
for papers that cite this paper
Get citation






jov