Gambling in the Visual Periphery: A Conjoint-Measurement Analysis of Human Ability to Judge Visual Uncertainty
Open Access
- 2 December 2010
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLoS Computational Biology
- Vol. 6 (12), e1001023
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1001023
Abstract
Recent work in motor control demonstrates that humans take their own motor uncertainty into account, adjusting the timing and goals of movement so as to maximize expected gain. Visual sensitivity varies dramatically with retinal location and target, and models of optimal visual search typically assume that the visual system takes retinal inhomogeneity into account in planning eye movements. Such models can then use the entire retina rather than just the fovea to speed search. Using a simple decision task, we evaluated human ability to compensate for retinal inhomogeneity. We first measured observers' sensitivity for targets, varying contrast and eccentricity. Observers then repeatedly chose between targets differing in eccentricity and contrast, selecting the one they would prefer to attempt: e.g., a low contrast target at 2° versus a high contrast target at 10°. Observers knew they would later attempt some of their chosen targets and receive rewards for correct classifications. We evaluated performance in three ways. Equivalence: Do observers' judgments agree with their actual performance? Do they correctly trade off eccentricity and contrast and select the more discriminable target in each pair? Transitivity: Are observers' choices self-consistent? Dominance: Do observers understand that increased contrast improves performance? Decreased eccentricity? All observers exhibited patterned failures of equivalence, and seven out of eight observers failed transitivity. There were significant but small failures of dominance. All these failures together reduced their winnings by 10%–18%. Human ability to discriminate drops dramatically with increasing distance from the center of vision. If you fixate a word on a page, you likely can not read words a short distance away. Because of this retinal inhomogeneity, we need to move our eyes to search a scene. The efficiency of search depends on how well the visual system compensates for inhomogeneity in planning eye movements. We used a simple decision task to find out what the observer “knows” about his or her own retina. We first measured observers' sensitivity for targets, varying contrast and eccentricity. Observers then repeatedly chose between targets differing in eccentricity and contrast, selecting the one they would prefer to attempt: e.g., a low contrast target at 2° versus a high contrast target at 10°. Could observers correctly trade off contrast and eccentricity and pick the more discriminable of the two targets? We found that observers exhibited large, patterned errors in their choices, making choices that were not even self-consistent.Keywords
This publication has 41 references indexed in Scilit:
- Evolution and Optimality of Similar Neural Mechanisms for Perception and Action during SearchPLoS Computational Biology, 2010
- Economic decision-making compared with an equivalent motor taskProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2009
- The uncrowded window of object recognitionNature Neuroscience, 2008
- Optimal Compensation for Temporal Uncertainty in Movement PlanningPLoS Computational Biology, 2008
- Eye movement statistics in humans are consistent with an optimal search strategyJournal of Vision, 2008
- Where to look next? Eye movements reduce local uncertaintyJournal of Vision, 2007
- Humans Rapidly Estimate Expected Gain in Movement PlanningPsychological Science, 2006
- Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashionNature, 2002
- Spatial scaling of central and peripheral contrast-sensitivity functionsJournal of the Optical Society of America A, 1987
- Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurementJournal of Mathematical Psychology, 1964