THE INFLUENCE of CULTURE, ATTENTION, and VISUAL FEEDBACK on PERCEPTUAL GROUPING by Tiffany A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE INFLUENCE OF CULTURE, ATTENTION, AND VISUAL FEEDBACK ON PERCEPTUAL GROUPING By Tiffany A. Carther-Krone (Lazar) A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies at The University of Manitoba in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Copyright © 2021 by Tiffany A. Carther-Krone (Lazar) ii Abstract What factors influence how we perceive the world around us? This dissertation describes a series of experiments using traditional cognitive and psychophysical methodologies, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and advanced visuomotor paradigms to explore the effects of culture, attention, and visual feedback on visual perception. In the first study, psychophysical methodologies were used to test the potential mechanism underlying differences in global processing by examining the relative contributions of the magnocellular and parvocellular pathways in mediating global and local visual processing in Asian and Caucasian groups. Participants completed the Navon hierarchical letters task under divided-attention conditions, indicating whether a target letter “H” was present in stimuli that were either unbiased, or biased to predominantly process low-spatial frequency information through the magnocellular or parvocellular pathways. Caucasians processed stimuli more globally than Asians when low- spatial frequency information was projected through the parvocellular pathway. Asians showed a global processing advantage when low-spatial frequency information was projected through the magnocellular pathway, and to a lesser extent to the parvocellular pathway. These findings suggest that the global processing bias found in each group depends on the pathway through which visual information was transmitted. In the second study, fMRI was used to examine perceptual grouping under inattention and divided-attention conditions. Results showed involvement of the right supramarginal gyrus in grouping specifically under conditions of inattention, suggesting that even during implicit grouping complex processing occurs. In the third study, early, middle and late visuomotor control were examined in the context of the Sander Parallelogram illusion to better understand how visual feedback impacts our perceptual system’s ability to group elements of our environment together. Consistent with the Two Visual Streams Hypothesis, results showed a more robust illusion effect for perceptual estimations compared to grasping a target. An illusion effect was also observed when participants were asked to grasp targets under both early and no vision conditions, supporting the notion that while the two streams are distinct, they also interact. Collectively, this work demonstrates that perception is shaped by many factors, and that those factors - in different amounts - can alter how we perceive the world around us. iii Acknowledgments There are many individuals I would like to thank who have guided, supported, and contributed to the completion of this dissertation. First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Jonathan Marotta, for his guidance, support and patience throughout the completion of this dissertation. Thank you for always being on my side, for pushing me out of my comfort zone, and for never being anything less than supportive as I figured out a work/family life balance over the past years. I would also like to thank my committee member, Dr. Jane Lawrence-Dewar, for all the time, expertise and support she has given me over the years. Thank you for hosting me during my visits to Thunder Bay to run the fMRI study, for the BrainVoyager tutorials and for all the coffee dates / mentoring sessions. I also want to thank my other committee members, Dr. Cheryl Glazebrook and Dr. Chase Figley, for all the time they graciously committed to committee meetings and reading over dissertations drafts. This dissertation wouldn’t be what it is today without their meaningful and constructive feedback. Thank you to all the members of the Perception and Action lab that have come and gone over the years as I’ve worked my way through this academic journey, especially to Ryan Langridge, who graciously listened to me talk through one too many methodological conundrums and statistical analyses. My PhD journey also wouldn’t have been the same without Alyse Sukovieff – it was truly an honour and pleasure getting to know you while we worked our way through graduate school together. And finally, to my family and friends outside my academic world – thank you for your never-ending support and encouragement over the years. Especially to my parents, mom and dad, you have always believed in me, listened to me, and supported me. And to my people — my husband, Chris, and our beautiful children, Olivia and Theo. Through it all you three have witnessed the highs and lows the most during this journey. There aren’t enough words in the world to describe how much you mean to me, we really are “in it to win it”. Lastly, I wanted to acknowledge that this work was supported by a scholarship from the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. iv Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, whom I am certain didn’t imagine seeing me through three decades of school when they enrolled me in kindergarten at 5 years old. The amount of time they have spent helping me with homework, encouraging me, and funding my academic endeavors is unquestionably a testament to their unending love and support. Thank you, mom and dad, for making me into the person I am today. I love you. v Table of Contents Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................... iii Dedication .................................................................................................................................. iv List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... viii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ ix Permission Statements ................................................................................................................ x CHAPTER I: GENERAL INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1 The Two Visual Streams Hypothesis ...................................................................................... 1 The Human Visual System ..................................................................................................... 2 Evidence for the Two Visual Streams Hypothesis ................................................................. 4 Global/Local Processing ......................................................................................................... 5 Perceptual Grouping ............................................................................................................... 9 Neuroimaging Evidence........................................................................................................ 11 Perception and Action ........................................................................................................... 12 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 16 References ................................................................................................................................. 17 CHAPTER II: PERCEPTION AND CULTURE ..................................................................... 26 Method ...................................................................................................................................... 29 Participants ............................................................................................................................ 29 General Procedure ................................................................................................................. 30 Psychophysical Thresholds ................................................................................................... 30 Stimuli and Procedure ........................................................................................................... 31 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 33 Reaction Time Analysis ........................................................................................................ 33 Accuracy Analysis ................................................................................................................ 33 Adjusted Reaction Time Analysis using Inverse Efficiency Score (IES)............................. 35 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 36 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 41 References ................................................................................................................................. 42 CHAPTER III: PERCEPTION AND ATTENTION