IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0150922.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Attentional Cueing and Spatial Uncertainty in Visual Field Testing

Author

Listed:
  • Jack Phu
  • Michael Kalloniatis
  • Sieu K Khuu

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the effect of reducing spatial uncertainty by attentional cueing on contrast sensitivity at a range of spatial locations and with different stimulus sizes. Methods: Six observers underwent perimetric testing with the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer (HFA) full threshold paradigm, and the output thresholds were compared to conditions where stimulus location was verbally cued to the observer. We varied the number of points cued, the eccentric and spatial location, and stimulus size (Goldmann size I, III and V). Subsequently, four observers underwent laboratory-based psychophysical testing on a custom computer program using Method of Constant Stimuli to determine the frequency-of-seeing (FOS) curves with similar variables. Results: We found that attentional cueing increased contrast sensitivity when measured using the HFA. We report a difference of approximately 2 dB with size I at peripheral and mid-peripheral testing locations. For size III, cueing had a greater effect for points presented in the periphery than in the mid-periphery. There was an exponential decay of the effect of cueing with increasing number of elements cued. Cueing a size V stimulus led to no change. FOS curves generated from laboratory-based psychophysical testing confirmed an increase in contrast detection sensitivity under the same conditions. We found that the FOS curve steepened when spatial uncertainty was reduced. Conclusion: We show that attentional cueing increases contrast sensitivity when using a size I or size III test stimulus on the HFA when up to 8 points are cued but not when a size V stimulus is cued. We show that this cueing also alters the slope of the FOS curve. This suggests that at least 8 points should be used to minimise potential attentional factors that may affect measurement of contrast sensitivity in the visual field.

Suggested Citation

  • Jack Phu & Michael Kalloniatis & Sieu K Khuu, 2016. "The Effect of Attentional Cueing and Spatial Uncertainty in Visual Field Testing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0150922
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150922
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0150922
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0150922&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0150922?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steven J. Luck & Edward K. Vogel, 1997. "The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions," Nature, Nature, vol. 390(6657), pages 279-281, November.
    2. Weiwei Zhang & Steven J. Luck, 2008. "Discrete fixed-resolution representations in visual working memory," Nature, Nature, vol. 453(7192), pages 233-235, May.
    3. Hillel Adesnik & William Bruns & Hiroki Taniguchi & Z. Josh Huang & Massimo Scanziani, 2012. "A neural circuit for spatial summation in visual cortex," Nature, Nature, vol. 490(7419), pages 226-231, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yuri A. Markov & Natalia A. Tiurina & Igor S. Utochkin, 2018. "Different features are stored independently in visual working memory but mediated by object-based representations," HSE Working papers WP BRP 101/PSY/2018, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    2. Yuri A. Markov & Igor S. Utochkin, 2017. "The Effect of Object Distinctiveness on Object-Location Binding in Visual Working Memory," HSE Working papers WP BRP 79/PSY/2017, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    3. J David Timm & Frank Papenmeier, 2019. "Reorganization of spatial configurations in visual working memory: A matter of set size?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-16, November.
    4. Shaiyan Keshvari & Ronald van den Berg & Wei Ji Ma, 2013. "No Evidence for an Item Limit in Change Detection," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-9, February.
    5. Ken McAnally & Russell Martin, 2016. "Modelling Visual Change Detection and Identification under Free Viewing Conditions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, February.
    6. Haggar Cohen-Dallal & Isaac Fradkin & Yoni Pertzov, 2018. "Are stronger memories forgotten more slowly? No evidence that memory strength influences the rate of forgetting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
    7. Loic Matthey & Paul M Bays & Peter Dayan, 2015. "A Probabilistic Palimpsest Model of Visual Short-term Memory," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-34, January.
    8. Mohammad Zia Ul Haq Katshu & Giovanni d'Avossa, 2014. "Fine-Grained, Local Maps and Coarse, Global Representations Support Human Spatial Working Memory," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-13, September.
    9. Igor S. Utochkin & Vladislav A. Khvostov & Yulia M. Stakina, 2017. "Ensemble-Based Segmentation in the Perception of Multiple Feature Conjunctions," HSE Working papers WP BRP 78/PSY/2017, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    10. Jastrzębski, Jan & Ciechanowska, Iwona & Chuderski, Adam, 2018. "The strong link between fluid intelligence and working memory cannot be explained away by strategy use," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 44-53.
    11. Aki Kondo & Jun Saiki, 2012. "Feature-Specific Encoding Flexibility in Visual Working Memory," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-8, December.
    12. Hongwei Tan & Sebastiaan van Dijken, 2023. "Dynamic machine vision with retinomorphic photomemristor-reservoir computing," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-9, December.
    13. Robert W. Faff & Sebastian Kernbach, 2021. "A visualisation approach for pitching research," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(4), pages 5177-5197, December.
    14. Thomas Miconi & Rufin VanRullen, 2016. "A Feedback Model of Attention Explains the Diverse Effects of Attention on Neural Firing Rates and Receptive Field Structure," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, February.
    15. Christopher Ebsch & Robert Rosenbaum, 2018. "Imbalanced amplification: A mechanism of amplification and suppression from local imbalance of excitation and inhibition in cortical circuits," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-28, March.
    16. Tullo, Domenico & Faubert, Jocelyn & Bertone, Armando, 2018. "The characterization of attention resource capacity and its relationship with fluid reasoning intelligence: A multiple object tracking study," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 158-168.
    17. Alireza Saeedi & Kun Wang & Ghazaleh Nikpourian & Andreas Bartels & Nikos K. Logothetis & Nelson K. Totah & Masataka Watanabe, 2024. "Brightness illusions drive a neuronal response in the primary visual cortex under top-down modulation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, December.
    18. Jifan Zhou & Jun Yin & Tong Chen & Xiaowei Ding & Zaifeng Gao & Mowei Shen, 2011. "Visual Working Memory Capacity Does Not Modulate the Feature-Based Information Filtering in Visual Working Memory," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(9), pages 1-10, September.
    19. Nathaniel J. S. Ashby & Stephan Dickert & Andreas Glockner, 2012. "Focusing on what you own: Biased information uptake due to ownership," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(3), pages 254-267, May.
    20. Lior Fink & Daniele Papismedov, 2023. "On the Same Page? What Users Benefit from a Desktop View on Mobile Devices," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 423-441, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0150922. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.