Does the human brain react more quickly to moving objects in the periphery of one’s vision, rather than in those direct view? This has long been my contention, but I lack any real evidence. I have anecdotal evidence, but that’s not worth much. Any research on this matter?
Turning your head to bring a moving peripheral object into direct view is an ingrained conditioned reflex for most folks. Smack a kid with a moving object a few times as he grows up, and his brain gets downright ready to gain information.
But the brain knows that the best way to get good information is to move the field of view directly to the moving object, where you can get some good image resolution.
Tris
The key factor in my question is reaction speed, not image identification, or logical assesment. Resolution is probably the least important factor here. Instinctual reaction times: peripheral vision V. direct field of view. That should make it more clear.
BTW is that “kamOO” or “Kamus”? Curious.
Since it haphazardly combines Greek, and Latin, but not French, I have always chosen the standard us pronunciation.
I doubt that the difference in neural response time is as much as the difference in the time taken by processing. As far as I know, although I am not certain, the same regions of the brain process stimuli from both sectors of the retina. An interesting question, now that the tools exist to ascertain it with some level of certainty, but I have not read any such study. Response, in terms of changes in physical behavior by the organism would be overwhelmed by the learned and instinctual reflexes unless the experimental model were very carefully designed.
An evoked response brain scan examination would have to be carefully designed, as well. I am not sure that our current resolution techniques operate at a speed sufficient to be of use in measuring the difference. Since the entire optical field is normally under constant evaluation by the brain, some specific methodology would be needed to be sure that only peripheral or only central visual nerves were being stimulated at each phase of the measuring protocol. Not impossible, but not a trivial parameter.
Even defining the exact time differential in microseconds seems of limited use, since processing time is still going to be measurable in milliseconds, or more. That component in higher animals is going to be very hard to isolate from conditioned reflexes. This doesn’t even address my first point, that most animals are going to move the field of vision to the object as a first reaction, if the object is of significance.
Tris
One other factor to consider: the brain will notice moving, but not stationary, objects in peripheral vision. There is a wonderful exhibit in the Exploratorium in San Francisco that demonstates this. Things that are invisible are set into motion and are suddenly obvious.
Whether the reaction truly is faster or whether this sudden blossoming into notice just seems like a powerful stimulus is something I can’t answer.
Seems to me that something sneaking up un you from behind, might generate a more “knee-jerk” reaction. I always try to be very cognizant of my peripheral vision when going through a blind intersection, it makes me feel like I’m looking both ways at once. Does anyone else do this, or am I just an overly carefull driver?
Objects in the periphery of the visual field are projected onto the edges of the retina where there are more rods and less cones (I think that’s the right way around) - meaning that less perception of colour but greater perception of contrast exists.
Certainly the visual system is more sensitive to changes in the peripheral field - this is evidenced by the fact that we can detect the flicker of a monitor (with a low refresh rate) when it at the edge of our vision, but not when we look at it directly; I believe this has something to do with persistence of vision, but I’m not sure whether that is a property of the visual system as a whole (including the brain) or just the rods and (particularly) cones themselves