Featural representation and internal noise around the visual field

Authors

Xue, S., Landy, M., Carrasco, M.

Abstract

In human adults, visual performance varies systematically around the visual field. It is higher along the horizontal than the vertical meridian (horizontal-vertical anisotropy, HVA) and higher at the lower than the upper vertical meridian (vertical-meridian asymmetry, VMA). Although these robust performance fields have been linked to non-uniform neural resources, the system-level computations that translate neural constraints into perceptual asymmetries remain largely unexplored. Here, we used reverse correlation to characterize feature weighting and internal noise during peripheral orientation detection. Reverse correlation revealed non-ideal feature weighting in the joint orientation-spatial-frequency space, which was incorporated into a noisy-observer model jointly constrained by trial-wise detection responses and double-pass consistency. Across observers, the magnitude of the HVA in contrast sensitivity was correlated with individual asymmetries in orientation sensitivity and additive internal noise. In contrast, we found limited evidence that any tested representational or noise components reliably accounted for individual differences in VMA magnitude. Spatial-frequency tuning exhibited substantial individual variability, often peaking below the signal's spatial frequency, but did not vary systematically across locations or explain performance asymmetries. These findings suggest that the HVA reflects systematic variation in the feature weighting of task-relevant orientations and internal noise, while constraining which computational components provide robust explanations of polar-angle asymmetries. Moreover, our framework provides a principled approach that links this prevalent perceptual asymmetry to the system-level computations that transform sensory information into perceptual decisions.

Preprint server: bioRxiv
The authors list and abstract were imported from bioRxiv on 06 Aug 2026.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this preprint? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.