Substitution and pooling in crowding

Jeremy Freeman (Corresponding Author), Ramakrishna Chakravarthi, Denis Pelli

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

41 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Unless we fixate directly on it, it is hard to see an object among other objects. This breakdown in object recognition, called crowding, severely limits peripheral vision. The effect is more severe when objects are more similar. When observers mistake the identity of a target among flanker objects, they often report a flanker. Many have taken these flanker reports as evidence of internal substitution of the target by a flanker. Here, we ask observers to identify a target presented in between one similar and one dissimilar flanker. (Simple) substitution takes only one letter, which is often the target but, by unwitting mistake, is sometimes a flanker. The opposite of substitution is pooling, which takes in more than one letter. Having taken only one letter, the substitution process knows only its identity, not its similarity to the target. Thus, it must report similar and dissimilar flankers equally often. Contrary to this prediction, the similar flanker is reported much more often than the dissimilar flanker, showing that rampant flanker substitution cannot account for most flanker reports. Mixture modeling shows that simple substitution can account for, at most, about half the trials. Pooling and nonpooling (simple substitution) together include all possible models of crowding. When observers are asked to identify a crowded object, at least half of their reports are pooled, on the basis of a combination of information from target and flankers, rather than being based on a single letter.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)379-396
Number of pages18
JournalAttention, Perception & Psychophysics
Volume74
Issue number2
Early online date9 Dec 2011
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2012

Fingerprint

Crowding
substitution
Substitution
Letters
evidence
Observer

Keywords

  • crowding
  • substitution
  • pooling
  • mixture modeling

Cite this

Substitution and pooling in crowding. / Freeman, Jeremy (Corresponding Author); Chakravarthi, Ramakrishna; Pelli, Denis.

In: Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, Vol. 74, No. 2, 02.2012, p. 379-396.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Freeman, Jeremy ; Chakravarthi, Ramakrishna ; Pelli, Denis. / Substitution and pooling in crowding. In: Attention, Perception & Psychophysics. 2012 ; Vol. 74, No. 2. pp. 379-396.
@article{e2779f1f9acd42dcae0f805f36db404b,
title = "Substitution and pooling in crowding",
abstract = "Unless we fixate directly on it, it is hard to see an object among other objects. This breakdown in object recognition, called crowding, severely limits peripheral vision. The effect is more severe when objects are more similar. When observers mistake the identity of a target among flanker objects, they often report a flanker. Many have taken these flanker reports as evidence of internal substitution of the target by a flanker. Here, we ask observers to identify a target presented in between one similar and one dissimilar flanker. (Simple) substitution takes only one letter, which is often the target but, by unwitting mistake, is sometimes a flanker. The opposite of substitution is pooling, which takes in more than one letter. Having taken only one letter, the substitution process knows only its identity, not its similarity to the target. Thus, it must report similar and dissimilar flankers equally often. Contrary to this prediction, the similar flanker is reported much more often than the dissimilar flanker, showing that rampant flanker substitution cannot account for most flanker reports. Mixture modeling shows that simple substitution can account for, at most, about half the trials. Pooling and nonpooling (simple substitution) together include all possible models of crowding. When observers are asked to identify a crowded object, at least half of their reports are pooled, on the basis of a combination of information from target and flankers, rather than being based on a single letter.",
keywords = "crowding, substitution, pooling, mixture modeling",
author = "Jeremy Freeman and Ramakrishna Chakravarthi and Denis Pelli",
year = "2012",
month = "2",
doi = "10.3758/s13414-011-0229-0",
language = "English",
volume = "74",
pages = "379--396",
journal = "Attention, Perception & Psychophysics",
issn = "1943-3921",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Substitution and pooling in crowding

AU - Freeman, Jeremy

AU - Chakravarthi, Ramakrishna

AU - Pelli, Denis

PY - 2012/2

Y1 - 2012/2

N2 - Unless we fixate directly on it, it is hard to see an object among other objects. This breakdown in object recognition, called crowding, severely limits peripheral vision. The effect is more severe when objects are more similar. When observers mistake the identity of a target among flanker objects, they often report a flanker. Many have taken these flanker reports as evidence of internal substitution of the target by a flanker. Here, we ask observers to identify a target presented in between one similar and one dissimilar flanker. (Simple) substitution takes only one letter, which is often the target but, by unwitting mistake, is sometimes a flanker. The opposite of substitution is pooling, which takes in more than one letter. Having taken only one letter, the substitution process knows only its identity, not its similarity to the target. Thus, it must report similar and dissimilar flankers equally often. Contrary to this prediction, the similar flanker is reported much more often than the dissimilar flanker, showing that rampant flanker substitution cannot account for most flanker reports. Mixture modeling shows that simple substitution can account for, at most, about half the trials. Pooling and nonpooling (simple substitution) together include all possible models of crowding. When observers are asked to identify a crowded object, at least half of their reports are pooled, on the basis of a combination of information from target and flankers, rather than being based on a single letter.

AB - Unless we fixate directly on it, it is hard to see an object among other objects. This breakdown in object recognition, called crowding, severely limits peripheral vision. The effect is more severe when objects are more similar. When observers mistake the identity of a target among flanker objects, they often report a flanker. Many have taken these flanker reports as evidence of internal substitution of the target by a flanker. Here, we ask observers to identify a target presented in between one similar and one dissimilar flanker. (Simple) substitution takes only one letter, which is often the target but, by unwitting mistake, is sometimes a flanker. The opposite of substitution is pooling, which takes in more than one letter. Having taken only one letter, the substitution process knows only its identity, not its similarity to the target. Thus, it must report similar and dissimilar flankers equally often. Contrary to this prediction, the similar flanker is reported much more often than the dissimilar flanker, showing that rampant flanker substitution cannot account for most flanker reports. Mixture modeling shows that simple substitution can account for, at most, about half the trials. Pooling and nonpooling (simple substitution) together include all possible models of crowding. When observers are asked to identify a crowded object, at least half of their reports are pooled, on the basis of a combination of information from target and flankers, rather than being based on a single letter.

KW - crowding

KW - substitution

KW - pooling

KW - mixture modeling

U2 - 10.3758/s13414-011-0229-0

DO - 10.3758/s13414-011-0229-0

M3 - Article

VL - 74

SP - 379

EP - 396

JO - Attention, Perception & Psychophysics

JF - Attention, Perception & Psychophysics

SN - 1943-3921

IS - 2

ER -