Gambling in the visual periphery: a conjoint-measurement analysis of human ability to judge visual uncertainty.

Hang Zhang,Camille Morvan,Laurence T Maloney
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1001023
2010-01-01
PLoS Computational Biology
Abstract:Recent work in motor control demonstrates that humans take their own motor uncertainty into account, adjusting the timing and goals of movement so as to maximize expected gain. Visual sensitivity varies dramatically with retinal location and target, and models of optimal visual search typically assume that the visual system takes retinal inhomogeneity into account in planning eye movements. Such models can then use the entire retina rather than just the fovea to speed search. Using a simple decision task, we evaluated human ability to compensate for retinal inhomogeneity. We firstmeasured observers' sensitivity for targets, varying contrast and eccentricity. Observers then repeatedly chose between targets differing in eccentricity and contrast, selecting the one they would prefer to attempt: e. g., a low contrast target at 2u versus a high contrast target at 10 degrees. Observers knew they would later attempt some of their chosen targets and receive rewards for correct classifications. We evaluated performance in three ways. Equivalence: Do observers' judgments agree with their actual performance? Do they correctly trade off eccentricity and contrast and select the more discriminable target in each pair? Transitivity: Are observers' choices self-consistent? Dominance: Do observers understand that increased contrast improves performance? Decreased eccentricity? All observers exhibited patterned failures of equivalence, and seven out of eight observers failed transitivity. There were significant but small failures of dominance. All these failures together reduced their winnings by 10%-18%.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?