Higher-contrast images are better remembered during naturalistic encoding.

It is unclear whether memory for images of poorer visibility (as low contrast or small size) will be lower due to weak signals elicited in early visual processing stages, or perhaps better since their processing may entail top-down processes (as effort and attention) associated with deeper encoding. We have recently shown that during naturalistic encoding (free viewing without task-related modulations), for image sizes between 3°-24°, bigger images stimulating more visual system processing resources at early processing stages are better remembered. Similar to size, higher contrast leads to higher activity in early visual processing. Therefore, here we hypothesized that during naturalistic encoding, at critical visibility ranges, higher contrast images will lead to higher signal-to-noise ratio and better signal quality flowing downstream and will thus be better remembered. Indeed, we found that during naturalistic encoding higher contrast images were remembered better than lower contrast ones (~ 15% higher accuracy, ~ 1.58 times better) for images at 7.5-60 RMS contrast range. Although image contrast and size modulate early visual processing very differently, our results further substantiate that at poor visibility ranges, during naturalistic non-instructed visual behavior, physical image dimensions (contributing to image visibility) impact image memory.

Parafoveal vision reveals qualitative differences between fusiform face area and parahippocampal place area.

The center-periphery visual field axis guides early visual system organization with enhanced resources devoted to central vision leading to reduced peripheral performance relative to that of central vision (i.e., behavioral eccentricity effect) for many visual functions. The center-periphery organization extends to high-order visual cortex where, for example, the well-studied face-sensitive fusiform face area (FFA) shows sensitivity to central vision and the place-sensitive parahippocampal place area (PPA) shows sensitivity to peripheral vision. As we have recently found that face perception is more sensitive to eccentricity than place perception, here we examined whether these behavioral findings reflect differences in FFA's and PPA's sensitivities to eccentricity. We assumed FFA would show higher sensitivity to eccentricity than PPA would, but that both regions' modulation by eccentricity would be invariant to the viewed category. We parametrically investigated (fMRI, n = 32) how FFA's and PPA's activations are modulated by eccentricity (≤8°) and category (upright/inverted faces/houses) while keeping stimulus size constant. As expected, FFA showed an overall higher sensitivity to eccentricity than PPA. However, both regions' activation modulations by eccentricity were dependent on the viewed category. In FFA, a reduction of activation with growing eccentricity ("BOLD eccentricity effect") was found (with different amplitudes) for all categories. In PPA however, qualitatively different BOLD eccentricity effect modulations were found (e.g., at 8° mild BOLD eccentricity effect for houses but a reverse BOLD eccentricity effect for faces and no modulation for inverted faces). Our results emphasize that peripheral vision investigations are critical to further our understanding of visual processing.

Larger images are better remembered during naturalistic encoding.

We are constantly exposed to multiple visual scenes, and while freely viewing them without an intentional effort to memorize or encode them, only some are remembered. It has been suggested that image memory is influenced by multiple factors, such as depth of processing, familiarity, and visual category. However, this is typically investigated when people are instructed to perform a task (e.g., remember or make some judgment about the images), which may modulate processing at multiple levels and thus, may not generalize to naturalistic visual behavior. Visual memory is assumed to rely on high-level visual perception that shows a level of size invariance and therefore is not assumed to be highly dependent on image size. Here, we reasoned that during naturalistic vision, free of task-related modulations, bigger images stimulate more visual system processing resources (from retina to cortex) and would, therefore, be better remembered. In an extensive set of seven experiments, naïve participants (n = 182) were asked to freely view presented images (sized 3° to 24°) without any instructed encoding task. Afterward, they were given a surprise recognition test (midsized images, 50% already seen). Larger images were remembered better than smaller ones across all experiments (∼20% higher accuracy or ∼1.5 times better). Memory was proportional to image size, faces were better remembered, and outdoors the least. Results were robust even when controlling for image set, presentation order, screen resolution, image scaling at test, or the amount of information. While multiple factors affect image memory, our results suggest that low- to high-level processes may all contribute to image memory.

Investigating face and house discrimination at foveal to parafoveal locations reveals category-specific characteristics.

Since perceptual and neural face sensitivity is associated with a foveal bias, and neural place sensitivity is associated with a peripheral bias (integration over space), we hypothesized that face perception ability will decline more with eccentricity than place perception ability. We also wanted to examine whether face perception ability would show a left visual field (LeVF) bias due to earlier reports suggesting right hemisphere dominance for faces, or would show an upper or lower visual field bias. Participants performed foveal and parafoveal face and house discrimination tasks for upright or inverted stimuli (≤4°) while their eye movements were monitored. Low-level visual tasks were also measured. The eccentricity-related accuracy reductions were evident for all categories. Through detailed analyses we found (i) a robust face inversion effect across the parafovea, while for houses an opposite effect was found, (ii) higher eccentricity-related sensitivity for face performance than for house performance (via inverted vs. upright within-category eccentricity-driven reductions), (iii) within-category but not across-category performance associations across eccentricities, and (iv) no hemifield biases. Our central to parafoveal investigations suggest that high-level vision processing may be reflected in behavioural performance.