You may take a look over this picture telling you the visual pathway of the respective visual field from each eye, especially the periphery; and how to join together in the brain to get an interpretation of space.

Hi Ahmad,

From what I can see in your enclosed paper, you have done an interesting experiment in visual perception on a classic illusion by Ewald Hering. I cannot answer the question in your title, but I am afraid it cannot be answered in this very general form anyway. One reason is that the terminology that you use is, probably inadvertently, not shared by others in the field. For example, it is not clear what, precisely, would be meant by “the visual peripheries”, of by “spatial wrapping” (even though, for the latter, it is clear what you mean from looking at the illusion). A simple search in Google or Google Scholar will show that these exact terms are not in current use in the scientific literature.

Another reason is that simple theories of the organization of the visual periphery, like enlarged receptive field sizes, typically fail when it comes to understanding complex perceptional phenomena like those acting in the classic illusions. As a glimpse on the complexity, you might have a look at our review paper on the visual periphery in the Journal of Vision, http://www.journalofvision.org/content/11/5/13. Btw, I have a paper on Ewald Hering on my website, www.hans.strasburger.de, if you’re interested.

Perhaps you have already done so, but if not, you could get in contact with somebody experienced in vision research and visual perceptual organization. You have an excellent visual perception lab at McMaster, headed by Patrick Bennett, and perhaps somebody there could lead you through the intricacies of perception research.

Thanks Hans for your feedback. You have an astonishing research profile.

Please notice that, although this study is about visual illusion, however, I think the anatomy of the retinal peripheries are constructed that way to strength the spatial perception; namely, idle retinal peripheries may weaken the spatial & depth perception. Years ago, it was brought to my attention that most of vision scientists do ignore the dynamics of the pupil and the lens, and therefore the visual angle would be static not dynamic and effective. Information that concern me a lot, and as an electrical engineer who passionate to study vision sciences; I therefore had decided to publish two papers to add precise foundations that can handle my discoveries.Because I extremely respect physics and I consider it the foundation of all of the sciences, I produced the following papers:

Preprint Linking Dynamics Between Pupil and Lens

Preprint The Dynamical Visual Angle

The paper you had just read is nothing but a product of what I called, the theory of two conscious brains. We had already produced two distinguished research articles concerned with distinctions between central and peripheral visual and auditory senses as shown below; and we are currently working on distinctions between central and peripheral olfactory, somatosensory, and gustatory senses. Please avoid performing the experiments with pinpoint pupil; reasons are mentioned in the articles.

Preprint Spatial Attention Dilates Time and Length

Preprint Distinctions Between Central and Peripheral Hearing

Ahmad, I am afraid you thoroughly underestimate the amount of scientific underpinnig of vision research and perception research. The areas are solidly founded on physics and all the other natural sciences. Your example about the relation between pupil size and visual angle is handled by an area called physiological optics, which is based on physics and physiology. A standard textbook is e.g. Atchisons "Optics of the human eye". But this is just one example. Vision science is a huge field.

Hello Hans,

I hope my message finds you in the best condition.

I never underestimate any scientific paper. I therefore will extremely appreciate if you provide me with the reference you're talking about. Significant amendments will be taken afterwards; if there is any inaccuracy in any of my publications.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Warm wishes,

Ahmad

I see. Yes, I agree vision research in the US has shifted quite a bit towards "cognitive" and "brain" interests in the last decades.

Perhaps a starting point for the pupil could be our paper

Article Blur Unblurred—A Mini Tutorial

(A paper on quantum mechanics is referenced there among others.) A key concept for understanding the optics of the eye is the Gullstrand-LeGrand Eye Model.

A reference to the retinal periphery is our 80 pages review referenced in the original answer (http://www.journalofvision.org/content/11/5/13).

Cheers.

Thanks a lot, Dr. Strasbuger. I will read the articles and make necessary corrections, if science and ethics require them. Your feedback on my articles are extremely welcome. The tutorial you shared is very interesting; please understand that I am presently so busy, so it might require a week to get back again to you.

Hello Hans Strasburger

I truly appreciate all of scientific literature, but I cannot imagine vision research being explained in scientific reasoning without quantum entanglements between the photons and their corresponding photoreceptors. This doesn't mean the entanglements are the only players, but they do important contributions. I am saying that because, I think, it's truly impossible to explain the following illusion without the entanglement theory.

Preprint Motion Induced Colours Fusion

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Warm wishes,

Ahmad

Hello Hans Strasburger

Below please find another evidence that support my previous hypothesis; but here we had observed that deep inhalation diminish spatial wrapping:

Preprint Deep Inhalation Eliminates Spatial Wrapping

Cheers,

Ahmad

I believe that the binocular single vision is the mainly contributor for the spacial perception, called as stereopsis

Best regards,

Nelide- Orthoptist

Hello Nelide Catach

Patients with one eye can have spatial perception, you can try it on yourself with/without executive actions; but stereopsis surely improve the spatial perception. I think, however, if the two eyes have impaired retinal peripheries, one will not have spatial vision.

In another word, stereopsis improve the spatial vision because it adds up the visual perceptions of the two eyes' retinal peripheries.

Best regards,

Ahmad

I agree that trough logical reasoning you can have a better spatial orientation, but you can only have a real stereopsis if you have a binocular single vision.

The cognitive capacities only contribute to the spatial perception, but it doesn't create the 3D perception that only the physical mechanism of both eyes can proportionate.

Best regards,

Nélide

I would like to add that I agree that if a person has retinal peripheral damage he will have important spatial perception difficulties, and the same problem occurs if one looses his visual field

You may take a look over this picture telling you the visual pathway of the respective visual field from each eye, especially the periphery; and how to join together in the brain to get an interpretation of space.

Hello Sunny Chi Lik Au

The image considers that the primary visual cortex is reasonable for spatial perception? I am sorry, but the spatial perception require the higher-tiers of the dorsal pathway to be active! The image also considers just the nasal but not the temporal retinal peripheries are reasonable for spatial perception? Again, I am sorry, how did he know that we don't need the both? I believe that the author has to make significant updates to this drawing to convince the other scientists..

Warmly,

Ahmad

Sunny Chi Lik Au, the image is a standard from an anatomy textbook (originally likely from Frank H. Netter's Atlas of Human Anatomy), and, in its essentials, is correct. There are details one could comment upon, e.g. that the retina in the picture is a little too small and extends further into the periphery. The ray tracing is also more complicated for the periphery.

Obviously, it only shows the projection into the primary visual cortex, and, yes, higher areas are also needed for spatial perception. One typically talks about the ventral and dorsal pathway, where the ventral pathway goes to the temporal lobe. A term 'temporal pathway' is not used by anatomists or vision scientists.

For peripheral vision, the nasal retina is a little more important in the sense that it extends further out (up to 107°) (for the temporal retina, the nose is in the way of the incoming light).

Hans Strasburger Geometrically speaking, I don't think the nose will affect the incoming light to seamlessly enter to the temporal retina. Otherwise, the temporal retina will be eventually dyfunctioned.

Ahmad Yousef, When looking straight ahead, the nose and bone structure limit the visual field in the nasal visual field (as seen in a standard visual field map). I expect the corresponding temporal retina extends a little further, since we can move our eyes and thus create stimulation to the outer parts of the temporal retina.

Hans Strasburger I think when we fixated at a central point we have kind of 'crossed- eyes'. With spontaneous saccadic eye movements, I think, however, the nasal bones should not appear in the visual field.

The visual field is defined (and measured in the peripmeter) for the situation where you look straight ahead, with parallel visual axes. I.e., not cross-eyed. The nose is then in the way. You usually don't pay attention to it and don't notice it, but try wiggle your finger in front of the nose a little (while looking straight ahead), and you will see it. You can also make it disappear behind the nose If you only look with one eye.

Hans Strasburger I don't mean 'huge crossed eyes' but 'very little crossed eyes'. If the nasal construction prevented a part of the retina to be active; evolutionary speaking, the aforementioned retinal area will be diminished, the eyes will shifted outwards, or the nose will be squeezed inwards...