Abstract:Here, we find with parafoveal stimulation that high‐order visual fusiform face area (FFA) and parahippocampal place area (PPA) are differently affected by eccentricity where PPA's modulation shows qualitative different BOLD eccentricity effects for different visual categories. Our results emphasize that peripheral vision investigations are critical to further our understanding of visual processing. 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.

Asymmetries in foveal vision

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

Asymmetric Foveated Just-Noticeable-Difference Model for Images With Visual Field Inhomogeneities

Asymmetrical representation of the upper and lower visual fields in oculomotor maps

Near-optimal combination of disparity across a log-polar scaled visual field

Transient perceptual enhancements resulting from selective shifts of exogenous attention in the central fovea

Different temporal dynamics of foveal and peripheral visual processing during fixation

The resolution of face perception varies systematically across the visual field

Modulations of foveal vision associated with microsaccade preparation

Inhomogeneous Visual Acuity Correlated with Idiosyncratic Mislocalization

Microsaccades and temporal attention at different locations of the visual field

Sub-cone visual resolution by active, adaptive sampling in the human foveola

Pre-saccadic Preview Shapes Post-Saccadic Processing More Where Perception is Poor

Idiosyncratic Visual Spatial Distortions Affect Object Appearances

How the window of visibility varies around polar angle

Presaccadic attention sharpens visual acuity

Applications of Adaptive Optics Imaging for Studying Conditions Affecting the Fovea

Defective Temporal Window of the Foveal Visual Processing in High Myopia

Presaccadic preview shapes postsaccadic processing more where perception is poor