Traffic gap judgment in people with significant peripheral field loss.

PURPOSE: Subjects with significant peripheral field loss (PFL) self report difficulty in street crossing. In this study, we compared the traffic gap judgment ability of fully sighted and PFL subjects to determine whether accuracy in identifying crossable gaps was adversely affected because of field loss. Moreover, we explored the contribution of visual and nonvisual factors to traffic gap judgment ability. METHODS: Eight subjects with significant PFL as a result of advanced retinitis pigmentosa or glaucoma with binocular visual field <20 degrees and five age-matched normals (NV) were recruited. All subjects were required to judge when they perceived it was safe to cross at a 2-way 4-lane street while they stood on the curb. Eye movements were recorded by an eye tracker as the subjects performed the decision task. Movies of the eye-on-scene were made offline and fixation patterns were classified into either relevant or irrelevant. Subjects' street-crossing behavior, habitual approach to street crossing, and perceived difficulties were assessed. RESULTS: Compared with normal vision (NV) subjects, the PFL subjects identified 12% fewer crossable gaps while making 23% more errors by identifying a gap as crossable when it was too short (p < 0.05). The differences in traffic gap judgment ability of the PFL subjects might be explained by the significantly smaller fixation area (p = 0.006) and fewer fixations distributed to the relevant tasks (p = 0.001). The subjects' habitual approach to street crossing and perceived difficulties in street crossing (r > 0.60) were significantly correlated with traffic gap judgment performance. CONCLUSIONS: As a consequence of significant field loss, limited visual information about the traffic environment can be acquired, resulting in significantly reduced performance in judging safe crossable gaps. This poor traffic gap judgment ability in the PFL subjects raises important concerns for their safety when attempting to cross the street.

Logic Brightens My Day: Evidence for Implicit Sensitivity to Logical Validity.

A key assumption of dual process theory is that reasoning is an explicit, effortful, deliberative process. The present study offers evidence for an implicit, possibly intuitive component of reasoning. Participants were shown sentences embedded in logically valid or invalid arguments. Participants were not asked to reason but instead rated the sentences for liking (Experiment 1) and physical brightness (Experiments 2-3). Sentences that followed logically from preceding sentences were judged to be more likable and brighter. Two other factors thought to be linked to implicit processing-sentence believability and facial expression-had similar effects on liking and brightness ratings. The authors conclude that sensitivity to logical structure was implicit, occurring potentially automatically and outside of awareness. They discuss the results within a fluency misattribution framework and make reference to the literature on discourse comprehension.