Search for: All records

Abstract Research on visual attention has uncovered significant anomalies, and some traditional methods may have inadvertently probed peripheral vision rather than attention. Vision science needs to rethink visual attention from the ground up. To facilitate this, for a year I banned the word “attention” in my lab. This constraint promoted a more precise discussion of attention-related phenomena, capacity limits, and mechanisms. The insights gained lead me to challenge attributing to “attention” those phenomena that can be better explained by perceptual processes, are predictable by an ideal observer model, or that otherwise may not require an additional mechanism. I enumerate a set of critical phenomena in need of explanation. Finally, I propose a unifying theory in which all perception results from performing a task, and tasks face a limit on complexity. 

Peripheral vision is fundamental for many real-world tasks, including walking, driving, and aviation. Nonetheless, there has been no effort to connect these applied literatures to research in peripheral vision in basic vision science or sports science. To close this gap, we analyzed 60 relevant papers, chosen according to objective criteria. Applied research, with its real-world time constraints, complex stimuli, and performance measures, reveals new functions of peripheral vision. Peripheral vision is used to monitor the environment (e.g., road edges, traffic signs, or malfunctioning lights), in ways that differ from basic research. Applied research uncovers new actions that one can perform solely with peripheral vision (e.g., steering a car, climbing stairs). An important use of peripheral vision is that it helps compare the position of one’s body/vehicle to objects in the world. In addition, many real-world tasks require multitasking, and the fact that peripheral vision provides degraded but useful information means that tradeoffs are common in deciding whether to use peripheral vision or move one’s eyes. These tradeoffs are strongly influenced by factors like expertise, age, distraction, emotional state, task importance, and what the observer already knows. These tradeoffs make it hard to infer from eye movements alone what information is gathered from peripheral vision and what tasks we can do without it. Finally, we recommend three ways in which basic, sport, and applied science can benefit each other’s methodology, furthering our understanding of peripheral vision more generally. 

Abstract Human beings subjectively experience a rich visual percept. However, when behavioral experiments probe the details of that percept, observers perform poorly, suggesting that vision is impoverished. What can explain this awareness puzzle? Is the rich percept a mere illusion? How does vision work as well as it does? This paper argues for two important pieces of the solution. First, peripheral vision encodes its inputs using a scheme that preserves a great deal of useful information, while losing the information necessary to perform certain tasks. The tasks rendered difficult by the peripheral encoding include many of those used to probe the details of visual experience. Second, many tasks used to probe attentional and working memory limits are, arguably, inherently difficult, and poor performance on these tasks may indicate limits on decision complexity. Two assumptions are critical to making sense of this hypothesis: (1) All visual perception, conscious or not, results from performing some visual task; and (2) all visual tasks face the same limit on decision complexity. Together, peripheral encoding plus decision complexity can explain a wide variety of phenomena, including vision’s marvelous successes, its quirky failures, and our rich subjective impression of the visual world.