title: Average orientation is more accessible through object boundaries than surface features.
abstract: In a glance, the visual system can provide a summary of some kinds of information about objects in a scene. We explore how summary information about orientation is extracted and find that some representations of orientation are privileged over others. Participants judged the average orientation of either a set of 6 bars or 6 circular gratings. For bars, orientation information was carried by object boundary features, while for gratings, orientation was carried by internal surface features. The results showed more accurate averaging performance for bars than for gratings, even when controlling for potential differences in encoding precision for solitary objects. We suggest that, during orientation averaging, the visual system prioritizes object boundaries over surface features. This privilege for boundary features may lead to a better representation of the spatial layout of a scene.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, 2029 Sheridan Rd, Evanston, IL 60208, USA. h-choo@northwestern.edu
authors.forename: Heeyoung
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Choo
authors.forename: Brian R
authors.initials: BR
authors.lastname: Levinthal
authors.forename: Steven L
authors.initials: SL
authors.lastname: Franconeri
mesh_terms: D004192:Discrimination, Psychological; D006801:Humans; D009949:Orientation; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual; D010775:Photic Stimulation; D013028:Space Perception
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 May 5;106(18):7345-50
references.pmid: 19380739
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2008 Apr;19(4):392-8
references.pmid: 18399893
references.citation: Science. 1999 Aug 6;285(5429):844-6
references.pmid: 10454935
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1983 Feb;33(2):113-20
references.pmid: 6844102
references.citation: Vision Res. 1992 Jul;32(7):1349-57
references.pmid: 1455707
references.citation: Vision Res. 2000;40(10-12):1293-300
references.pmid: 10788640
references.citation: J Vis. 2004 Dec 30;4(12):1136-69
references.pmid: 15669917
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 2008 Feb;70(2):346-64
references.pmid: 18372755
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 2008 Jul;70(5):772-88
references.pmid: 18613626
references.citation: Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6
references.pmid: 9176952
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2009 Apr 28;19(8):R323-4
references.pmid: 19409278
references.citation: Perception. 2000;29(4):399-407
references.pmid: 10953760
references.citation: Nature. 1981 Mar 12;290(5802):91-7
references.pmid: 7207603
references.citation: Network. 2003 Aug;14(3):391-412
references.pmid: 12938764
references.citation: Prog Brain Res. 2006;155:23-36
references.pmid: 17027377
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2001 Mar;12(2):157-62
references.pmid: 11340926
references.citation: Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):437-42
references.pmid: 9176953
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1985 Apr;92(2):173-211
references.pmid: 3887450
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2001 Jul;4(7):739-44
references.pmid: 11426231
references.citation: Vision Res. 2003 Feb;43(4):393-404
references.pmid: 12535996
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1984 Nov;36(5):428-56
references.pmid: 6398424
references.citation: Cognition. 1999 Sep 30;72(2):125-66
references.pmid: 10553669
references.citation: Science. 1973 Jun 15;180(4091):1194-7
references.pmid: 4707066
references.citation: Science. 2000 Mar 31;287(5462):2423-5
references.pmid: 10766619