Cortical magnification eliminates differences in contrast sensitivity across but not around the visual field

  1. Michael Jigo
  2. Daniel Tavdy
  3. Marc Himmelberg
  4. Marisa Carrasco  Is a corresponding author
  1. New York University, United States

Abstract

Human visual performance changes dramatically both across (eccentricity) and around (polar angle) the visual field. Performance is better at the fovea, decreases with eccentricity, and is better along the horizontal than vertical meridian and along the lower than the upper vertical meridian. However, all neurophysiological and virtually all behavioral studies of cortical magnification have investigated eccentricity effects without considering polar angle. Most performance differences due to eccentricity are eliminated when stimulus size is cortically magnified (M-scaled) to equate the size of its cortical representation in primary visual cortex (V1). But does cortical magnification underlie performance differences around the visual field? Here, to assess contrast sensitivity, human adult observers performed an orientation discrimination task with constant stimulus size at different locations as well as when stimulus size was M-scaled according to stimulus eccentricity and polar angle location. We found that although M-scaling stimulus size eliminates differences across eccentricity, it does not eliminate differences around the polar angle. This finding indicates that limits in contrast sensitivity across eccentricity and around the visual field are mediated by different anatomical and computational constraints.

Data availability

Data and code pertaining to the experiment are available on the OSF repository (https://osf.io/gvkdh/; Jigo et al., 2023)

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Michael Jigo

    Department of Psychology, New York University, New York City, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9742-4576
  2. Daniel Tavdy

    Department of Psychology, New York University, New York City, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Marc Himmelberg

    Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9133-7984
  4. Marisa Carrasco

    Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    marisa.carrasco@nyu.edu
    Competing interests
    Marisa Carrasco, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1002-9056

Funding

National Eye Institute (R01-EY027401)

  • Marisa Carrasco

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Ming Meng, South China Normal University, China

Ethics

Human subjects: All observers provided written informed consent under the University Committee's protocol on Activities Involving Human Subjects at New York University agreeing to participate in the study and the public release of their data. All experimental procedures were approved by the Ethics Committee at the NYU Department of Psychology (IRB: FY2016-466) and were in agreement with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Version history

  1. Preprint posted: April 28, 2022 (view preprint)
  2. Received: October 14, 2022
  3. Accepted: March 16, 2023
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: March 24, 2023 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: April 11, 2023 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2023, Jigo et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 932
    views
  • 141
    downloads
  • 13
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Michael Jigo
  2. Daniel Tavdy
  3. Marc Himmelberg
  4. Marisa Carrasco
(2023)
Cortical magnification eliminates differences in contrast sensitivity across but not around the visual field
eLife 12:e84205.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.84205

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.84205

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Ya-Hui Lin, Li-Wen Wang ... Li-An Chu
    Research Article

    Tissue-clearing and labeling techniques have revolutionized brain-wide imaging and analysis, yet their application to clinical formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) blocks remains challenging. We introduce HIF-Clear, a novel method for efficiently clearing and labeling centimeter-thick FFPE specimens using elevated temperature and concentrated detergents. HIF-Clear with multi-round immunolabeling reveals neuron circuitry regulating multiple neurotransmitter systems in a whole FFPE mouse brain and is able to be used as the evaluation of disease treatment efficiency. HIF-Clear also supports expansion microscopy and can be performed on a non-sectioned 15-year-old FFPE specimen, as well as a 3-month formalin-fixed mouse brain. Thus, HIF-Clear represents a feasible approach for researching archived FFPE specimens for future neuroscientific and 3D neuropathological analyses.

    1. Neuroscience
    Amanda Chu, Nicholas T Gordon ... Michael A McDannald
    Research Article

    Pavlovian fear conditioning has been extensively used to study the behavioral and neural basis of defensive systems. In a typical procedure, a cue is paired with foot shock, and subsequent cue presentation elicits freezing, a behavior theoretically linked to predator detection. Studies have since shown a fear conditioned cue can elicit locomotion, a behavior that - in addition to jumping, and rearing - is theoretically linked to imminent or occurring predation. A criticism of studies observing fear conditioned cue-elicited locomotion is that responding is non-associative. We gave rats Pavlovian fear discrimination over a baseline of reward seeking. TTL-triggered cameras captured 5 behavior frames/s around cue presentation. Experiment 1 examined the emergence of danger-specific behaviors over fear acquisition. Experiment 2 examined the expression of danger-specific behaviors in fear extinction. In total, we scored 112,000 frames for nine discrete behavior categories. Temporal ethograms show that during acquisition, a fear conditioned cue suppresses reward seeking and elicits freezing, but also elicits locomotion, jumping, and rearing - all of which are maximal when foot shock is imminent. During extinction, a fear conditioned cue most prominently suppresses reward seeking, and elicits locomotion that is timed to shock delivery. The independent expression of these behaviors in both experiments reveal a fear conditioned cue to orchestrate a temporally organized suite of behaviors.