Detecting single-target changes in multiple object tracking: The case of peripheral vision.

In sports games, it is often necessary to perceive a large number of moving objects (e.g., the ball and players). In this context, the role of peripheral vision for processing motion information in the periphery is often discussed especially when motor responses are required. In an attempt to test the basal functionality of peripheral vision in those sports-games situations, a Multiple Object Tracking (MOT) task that requires to track a certain number of targets amidst distractors, was chosen. Participants’ primary task was to recall four targets (out of 10 rectangular stimuli) after six seconds of quasi-random motion. As a second task, a button had to be pressed if a target change occurred (Exp 1: stop vs. form change to a diamond for 0.5 s; Exp 2: stop vs. slowdown for 0.5 s). While eccentricities of changes (5-10° vs. 15-20°) were manipulated, decision accuracy (recall and button press correct), motor response time as well as saccadic reaction time were calculated as dependent variables. Results show that participants indeed used peripheral vision to detect changes, because either no or very late saccades to the changed target were executed in correct trials. Moreover, a saccade was more often executed when eccentricities were small. Response accuracies were higher and response times were lower in the stop conditions of both experiments while larger eccentricities led to higher response times in all conditions. Summing up, it could be shown that monitoring targets and detecting changes can be processed by peripheral vision only and that a monitoring strategy on the basis of peripheral vision may be the optimal one as saccades may be afflicted with certain costs. Further research is planned to address the question whether this functionality is also evident in sports tasks.

Detecting single-target changes in multiple object tracking: The case of peripheral vision

In sports games, it is often necessary to perceive a large number of moving objects (e.g., the ball and players). In this context, the role of peripheral vision for processing motion information in the periphery is often discussed especially when motor responses are required. In an attempt to test the capability of using peripheral vision in those sports-games situations, a Multiple-Object-Tracking task that requires to track a certain number of targets amidst distractors, was chosen to determine the sensitivity of detecting target changes with peripheral vision only. Participants’ primary task was to recall four targets (out of 10 rectangular stimuli) after six seconds of quasi-random motion. As a second task, a button had to be pressed if a target change occurred (Exp 1: stop vs. form change to a diamond for 0.5 s; Exp 2: stop vs. slowdown for 0.5 s). Eccentricities of changes (5-10° vs. 15-20°) were manipulated, decision accuracy (recall and button press correct), motor response time and saccadic reaction time (change onset to saccade onset) were calculated and eye-movements were recorded. Results show that participants indeed used peripheral vision to detect changes, because either no or very late saccades to the changed target were executed in correct trials. Moreover, a saccade was more often executed when eccentricities were small. Response accuracies were higher and response times were lower in the stop conditions of both experiments while larger eccentricities led to higher response times in all conditions. Summing up, it could be shown that monitoring targets and detecting changes can be processed by peripheral vision only and that a monitoring strategy on the basis of peripheral vision may be the optimal one as saccades may be afflicted with certain costs. Further research is planned to address the question whether this functionality is also evident in sports tasks.

Detecting single-target changes in multiple object tracking: The case of peripheral vision

In the current study it is investigated whether peripheral vision can be used to monitor multi-ple moving objects and to detect single-target changes. For this purpose, in Experiment 1, a modified MOT setup with a large projection and a constant-position centroid phase had to be checked first. Classical findings regarding the use of a virtual centroid to track multiple ob-jects and the dependency of tracking accuracy on target speed could be successfully replicat-ed. Thereafter, the main experimental variations regarding the manipulation of to-be-detected target changes could be introduced in Experiment 2. In addition to a button press used for the detection task, gaze behavior was assessed using an integrated eye-tracking system. The anal-ysis of saccadic reaction times in relation to the motor response shows that peripheral vision is naturally used to detect motion and form changes in MOT because the saccade to the target occurred after target-change offset. Furthermore, for changes of comparable task difficulties, motion changes are detected better by peripheral vision than form changes. Findings indicate that capabilities of the visual system (e.g., visual acuity) affect change detection rates and that covert-attention processes may be affected by vision-related aspects like spatial uncertainty. Moreover, it is argued that a centroid-MOT strategy might reduce the amount of saccade-related costs and that eye-tracking seems to be generally valuable to test predictions derived from theories on MOT. Finally, implications for testing covert attention in applied settings are proposed.

Reduced foveal vision enhances peripheral monitoring and peripheral event detection

Introduction: Although it seems plausible that sports performance relies on high-acuity foveal vision, it could be empirically shown that myoptic blur (up to +2 diopters) does not harm performance in sport tasks that require foveal information pick-up like golf putting (Bulson, Ciuffreda, & Hung, 2008). How myoptic blur affects peripheral performance is yet unknown. Attention might be less needed for processing visual cues foveally and lead to better performance because peripheral cues are better processed as a function of reduced foveal vision, which will be tested in the current experiment. Methods: 18 sport science students with self-reported myopia volunteered as participants, all of them regularly wearing contact lenses. Exclusion criteria comprised visual correction other than myopic, correction of astigmatism and use of contact lenses out of Swiss delivery area. For each of the participants, three pairs of additional contact lenses (besides their regular lenses; used in the “plano” condition) were manufactured with an individual overcorrection to a retinal defocus of +1 to +3 diopters (referred to as “+1.00 D”, “+2.00 D”, and “+3.00 D” condition, respectively). Gaze data were acquired while participants had to perform a multiple object tracking (MOT) task that required to track 4 out of 10 moving stimuli. In addition, in 66.7 % of all trials, one of the 4 targets suddenly stopped during the motion phase for a period of 0.5 s. Stimuli moved in front of a picture of a sports hall to allow for foveal processing. Due to the directional hypotheses, the level of significance for one-tailed tests on differences was set at α = .05 and posteriori effect sizes were computed as partial eta squares (ηρ2). Results: Due to problems with the gaze-data collection, 3 participants had to be excluded from further analyses. The expectation of a centroid strategy was confirmed because gaze was closer to the centroid than the target (all p < .01). In comparison to the plano baseline, participants more often recalled all 4 targets under defocus conditions, F(1,14) = 26.13, p < .01, ηρ2 = .65. The three defocus conditions differed significantly, F(2,28) = 2.56, p = .05, ηρ2 = .16, with a higher accuracy as a function of a defocus increase and significant contrasts between conditions +1.00 D and +2.00 D (p = .03) and +1.00 D and +3.00 D (p = .03). For stop trials, significant differences could neither be found between plano baseline and defocus conditions, F(1,14) = .19, p = .67, ηρ2 = .01, nor between the three defocus conditions, F(2,28) = 1.09, p = .18, ηρ2 = .07. Participants reacted faster in “4 correct+button” trials under defocus than under plano-baseline conditions, F(1,14) = 10.77, p < .01, ηρ2 = .44. The defocus conditions differed significantly, F(2,28) = 6.16, p < .01, ηρ2 = .31, with shorter response times as a function of a defocus increase and significant contrasts between +1.00 D and +2.00 D (p = .01) and +1.00 D and +3.00 D (p < .01). Discussion: The results show that gaze behaviour in MOT is not affected to a relevant degree by a visual overcorrection up to +3 diopters. Hence, it can be taken for granted that peripheral event detection was investigated in the present study. This overcorrection, however, does not harm the capability to peripherally track objects. Moreover, if an event has to be detected peripherally, neither response accuracy nor response time is negatively affected. Findings could claim considerable relevance for all sport situations in which peripheral vision is required which now needs applied studies on this topic. References: Bulson, R. C., Ciuffreda, K. J., & Hung, G. K. (2008). The effect of retinal defocus on golf putting. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 28, 334-344.

Impairments of peripheral motion change detection during smooth pursuit eye movements

Introduction: In team sports the ability to use peripheral vision is essential to track a number of players and the ball. By using eye-tracking devices it was found that players either use fixations and saccades to process information on the pitch or use smooth pursuit eye movements (SPEM) to keep track of single objects (Schütz, Braun, & Gegenfurtner, 2011). However, it is assumed that peripheral vision can be used best when the gaze is stable while it is unknown whether motion changes can be equally well detected when SPEM are used especially because contrast sensitivity is reduced during SPEM (Schütz, Delipetkose, Braun, Kerzel, & Gegenfurtner, 2007). Therefore, peripheral motion change detection will be examined by contrasting a fixation condition with a SPEM condition. Methods: 13 participants (7 male, 6 female) were presented with a visual display consisting of 15 white and 1 red square. Participants were instructed to follow the red square with their eyes and press a button as soon as a white square begins to move. White square movements occurred either when the red square was still (fixation condition) or moving in a circular manner with 6 °/s (pursuit condition). The to-be-detected white square movements varied in eccentricity (4 °, 8 °, 16 °) and speed (1 °/s, 2 °/s, 4 °/s) while movement time of white squares was constant at 500 ms. 180 events should be detected in total. A Vicon-integrated eye-tracking system and a button press (1000 Hz) was used to control for eye-movements and measure detection rates and response times. Response times (ms) and missed detections (%) were measured as dependent variables and analysed with a 2 (manipulation) x 3 (eccentricity) x 3 (speed) ANOVA with repeated measures on all factors. Results: Significant response time effects were found for manipulation, F(1,12) = 224.31, p < .01, ηp2 = .95, eccentricity, F(2,24) = 56.43; p < .01, ηp2 = .83, and the interaction between the two factors, F(2,24) = 64.43; p < .01, ηp2 = .84. Response times increased as a function of eccentricity for SPEM only and were overall higher than in the fixation condition. Results further showed missed events effects for manipulation, F(1,12) = 37.14; p < .01, ηp2 = .76, eccentricity, F(2,24) = 44.90; p < .01, ηp2 = .79, the interaction between the two factors, F(2,24) = 39.52; p < .01, ηp2 = .77 and the three-way interaction manipulation x eccentricity x speed, F(2,24) = 3.01; p = .03, ηp2 = .20. While less than 2% of events were missed on average in the fixation condition as well as at 4° and 8° eccentricity in the SPEM condition, missed events increased for SPEM at 16 ° eccentricity with significantly more missed events in the 4 °/s speed condition (1 °/s: M = 34.69, SD = 20.52; 2 °/s: M = 33.34, SD = 19.40; 4 °/s: M = 39.67, SD = 19.40). Discussion: It could be shown that using SPEM impairs the ability to detect peripheral motion changes at the far periphery and that fixations not only help to detect these motion changes but also to respond faster. Due to high temporal constraints especially in team sports like soccer or basketball, fast reaction are necessary for successful anticipation and decision making. Thus, it is advised to anchor gaze at a specific location if peripheral changes (e.g. movements of other players) that require a motor response have to be detected. In contrast, SPEM should only be used if a single object, like the ball in cricket or baseball, is necessary for a successful motor response. References: Schütz, A. C., Braun, D. I., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2011). Eye movements and perception: A selective review. Journal of Vision, 11, 1-30. Schütz, A. C., Delipetkose, E., Braun, D. I., Kerzel, D., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2007). Temporal contrast sensitivity during smooth pursuit eye movements. Journal of Vision, 7, 1-15.

Age-dependent visual exploration during simulated day- and night driving on a motorway: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: Central and peripheral vision is needed for object detection. Previous research has shown that visual target detection is affected by age. In addition, light conditions also influence visual exploration. The aim of the study was to investigate the effects of age and different light conditions on visual exploration behavior and on driving performance during simulated driving. METHODS: A fixed-base simulator with 180 degree field of view was used to simulate a motorway route under daylight and night conditions to test 29 young subjects (25-40 years) and 27 older subjects (65-78 years). Drivers' eye fixations were analyzed and assigned to regions of interests (ROI) such as street, road signs, car ahead, environment, rear view mirror, side mirror left, side mirror right, incoming car, parked car, road repair. In addition, lane-keeping and driving speed were analyzed as a measure of driving performance. RESULTS: Older drivers had longer fixations on the task relevant ROI, but had a lower frequency of checking mirrors when compared to younger drivers. In both age groups, night driving led to a less fixations on the mirror. At the performance level, older drivers showed more variation in driving speed and lane-keeping behavior, which was especially prominent at night. In younger drivers, night driving had no impact on driving speed or lane-keeping behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Older drivers' visual exploration behavior are more fixed on the task relevant ROI, especially at night, when driving performance becomes more heterogeneous than in younger drivers.