Fig. 3: Differences in measurement sensitivity across the visual field that interact with stimulus vignetting can explain decoding differences between vertical and horizontal orientations that are presented centrally.
From: Model mimicry limits conclusions about neural tuning and can mistakenly imply unlikely priors
ATop: Relative location decoding accuracy (percentage difference from the mean) as a function of presented stimulus location (re-analyzes of31,32,33, n = 77 over all experiments). Green and purple shadings highlight stimuli presented on the horizontal and vertical meridians, respectively. Black error shading of the aggregate is the 95% C.I. of the mean of all participants. Bottom: Relative location decoding across the visual field (percentage difference from the mean), replotted to scale for the various experiments: Outer, thicker ring represents possible locations of dot stimuli used in Foster and colleagues32,33, presented at 3.8°–4° eccentricity and 1.6° in diameter. Inner ring represents possible locations of the dot stimuli used in Bae31, presented at 2.3° eccentricity with 0.35° diameter. Dashed gray circles represent stimulus sizes of the central orientations used in Wolff and colleagues23 and Harrison colleagues1 (radii of 2.88° and 4.2°, respectively). B Vignetting34 for gratings presented at the center of the screen: Orientation energy is highest on the stimulus edges aligned with the orientation. This means relatively higher orientation energy along the vertical meridian for vertical orientations (top) where SNR is low, and along the horizontal meridian for horizontal orientations (bottom) were SNR high. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.
