Back

Incomplete letter recognition is limited by cortical and not optical factors: Simulating the visual deficits of dementia in healthy adults

Huang, Z.; Dekker, T. M.; Crutch, S. J.; Yong, K. X. X.; Greenwood, J. A.

2026-05-20 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.05.18.725904 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Incomplete letter recognition tasks are frequently used to detect visual deficits arising from neurodegenerative syndromes, including Posterior Cortical Atrophy (PCA; visual-variant Alzheimers disease). A recent development of this approach is the Graded Incomplete Letters Test (GILT), which measures recognition thresholds for letters degraded by removing pixelated sections (decreasing completeness). Although GILT thresholds are strongly elevated in PCA relative to typical adults, the precise cortical visual impairments underlying these deficits are unclear, as is the potential contribution from age-related optical limitations. We compared candidate cortical factors (crowding and global integration) with optical limitations (blur and low contrast) by simulating these factors in typical adults (n=6) viewing incomplete letter stimuli. Participants identified foveally presented letters (12 alternatives), with completeness varied using QUEST. At baseline, thresholds averaged [~]5% completeness. Optical factors were simulated by separately applying blur and lowered contrast. These factors had minimal effect on thresholds, except where blur/contrast levels approached visibility limits, where thresholds rose modestly but remained far below clinical levels in PCA. Cortical factors were simulated by increasing crowding (disruptions from clutter) through peripheral presentation, with global-integration impairments simulated by varying pixel size to alter the distribution of degradation (limiting spatial integration) or degrading letters dynamically with limited-lifetime pixels (limiting temporal integration). These manipulations substantially elevated thresholds, with combined crowding and global-integration impairments increasing thresholds to levels comparable with PCA. We conclude that impaired incomplete letter recognition is driven primarily by cortical rather than optical factors, and that neurodegenerative deficits may reflect the combined impact of multiple cortical limitations.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.2%
2
Neurobiology of Aging
95 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.2%
3
Alzheimer's & Dementia
143 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
6.7%
4
GeroScience
97 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.2%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 20%
6.2%
6
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring
38 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.8%
50% of probability mass above
7
Brain Communications
147 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.9%
8
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 40%
3.5%
9
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
43 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.5%
10
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
119 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.5%
11
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
12
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.1%
13
Communications Psychology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.0%
14
Cortex
102 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.0%
15
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 29%
2.0%
16
The Journal of Neuroscience
928 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.8%
17
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
18
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
19
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.6%
20
Imaging Neuroscience
242 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
21
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 20%
1.2%
22
Brain
154 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
23
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 60%
0.9%
24
Neurobiology of Disease
134 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
25
Journal of Vision
92 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
26
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
52 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
27
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 62%
0.6%
28
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
29
Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%