data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d3a1c/d3a1cc4016ced116b12e40b88edd90ab6744f455" alt="Andrew Haun"
Andrew Haun
What is vision?
Supervisors: Giulio Tononi, Nao Tsuchiya, Bas Rokers, Eli Peli, and Ed Essock
Supervisors: Giulio Tononi, Nao Tsuchiya, Bas Rokers, Eli Peli, and Ed Essock
less
Related Authors
Wayne Wu
Carnegie Mellon University
Matteo Grasso
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Jeremiah Hendren
Technische Universität München
Berit Brogaard
University of Miami
Antonios Kaldas
Sydney College of Divinity
Jeff Yoshimi
University of California, Merced
InterestsView All (11)
Uploads
Papers by Andrew Haun
potentials observed following the onset of a patterned
stimulus. The polarity of its peak is dependent on whether
stimuli are presented in the upper or lower regions of the
peripheral visual field, but has been argued to be negative
for stimuli presented to the fovea. However, there has yet
to be a systematic investigation into the extent to which the
peripheral C1 (pC1) and foveal C1 (fC1) can be differentiated
on the basis of response characteristics to different
stimuli. The current study employed checkerboard patterns
(Exp 1) and sinusoidal gratings of different spatial frequency
(Exp 2) presented to the fovea or within one of the
four quadrants of the peripheral visual field. The checkerboard
stimuli yielded a sizable difference in peak component
latency, with the fC1 peaking *32 ms after the pC1.
Further, the pC1 showed a band-pass response magnitude
profile that peaked at 4 cycles per degree (cpd), whereas
the fC1 was high-pass for spatial frequency, with a cut-off
around 4 cpd. Finally, the scalp topographies of the pC1
and fC1 in both experiments differed greatly, with the fC1
being more posterior than the pC1. The results reported
here call into question recent attempts to characterize
general C1 processes without regard to whether stimuli are
placed in the fovea or in the periphery.
potentials observed following the onset of a patterned
stimulus. The polarity of its peak is dependent on whether
stimuli are presented in the upper or lower regions of the
peripheral visual field, but has been argued to be negative
for stimuli presented to the fovea. However, there has yet
to be a systematic investigation into the extent to which the
peripheral C1 (pC1) and foveal C1 (fC1) can be differentiated
on the basis of response characteristics to different
stimuli. The current study employed checkerboard patterns
(Exp 1) and sinusoidal gratings of different spatial frequency
(Exp 2) presented to the fovea or within one of the
four quadrants of the peripheral visual field. The checkerboard
stimuli yielded a sizable difference in peak component
latency, with the fC1 peaking *32 ms after the pC1.
Further, the pC1 showed a band-pass response magnitude
profile that peaked at 4 cycles per degree (cpd), whereas
the fC1 was high-pass for spatial frequency, with a cut-off
around 4 cpd. Finally, the scalp topographies of the pC1
and fC1 in both experiments differed greatly, with the fC1
being more posterior than the pC1. The results reported
here call into question recent attempts to characterize
general C1 processes without regard to whether stimuli are
placed in the fovea or in the periphery.