Does one size fit all? Comment on Jurkiewicz et al., Attentional modulation of size perception in peripheral vision

We read with interest the publication by Jurkiewicz, Foncelle, Yeshurun and Pisella, (2026), “Attentional Modulation of Size Perception in Peripheral Vision,” which appeared recently in the Journal of Vision. The reported results, that valid pre-cueing influences the perceived-size matches of foveal and peripheral stimuli, are compelling. However, we were disappointed that nowhere in the article did the authors mention the previously reported influence of peripheral target luminance on perceived size (cf., Bedell & Johnson, 1984). This lapse is particularly noteworthy as the article by Baldwin, Burleigh, Pepperell and Ruta (2016), which Jurkiewicz et al. (2026) cited, addresses the possibility that peripheral stimuli can appear either smaller or larger than foveal targets.

Bedell and Johnson (1984) found that illuminated targets at 9° and 18° in the peripheral field that appeared to match in size a 1° foveal stimulus varied systematically in diameter between approximately 65 and 55 min arc, as the peripheral target luminance varied from −1 to +1 log cd/m². Unfortunately, we did not find the luminance of either the peripheral or foveal stimuli that the authors used in the article by Jurkiewicz et al. (2026). On page 4, the authors indicate that the stimuli in this study were the same as those in Jurkiewicz Salemme, Froment, and Pisella (2021). However, stimulus luminance appears not to be reported in this earlier publication either. In fact, Figure 2 of Jurkiewicz et al. (2021) suggests that the presented stimuli had negative (black on white) luminance contrast, whereas Figure 1 of the Jurkiewicz et al. (2026) article implies that all of the stimuli were of positive (white on black) contrast.

In addition to specifying the target and background luminances used in these studies, we would have expected the authors to acknowledge explicitly the luminance-dependent direction of peripheral size-perception errors. Although we have no reason to suspect that the influence of attention on peripheral size matches reported by the authors would depend on the specific luminance of the targets and background, the magnitude of the obtained effects might. In particular, because attention modulates the detectability of peripheral stimuli (e.g., Hawkins et al., 1990; Liu, Wolfgang & Smith, 2009), we wonder whether a portion of the effects on perceived size that the authors reported might be attributable to variations in stimulus detectability. In this regard, we note (1) Bedell and Johnson (1984) suggested that peripheral size-perception errors are related to the extent of the target's retinal-luminance distribution that exceeds the detection threshold and (2) the effects of luminance on perceived peripheral size reported by Bedell and Johnson (1984) are as large or larger than the cueing effects shown in Figure 3 of the article by Jurkiewicz et al. (2026).