ArticleVision research2015
Brightness induction and suprathreshold vision: effects of age and visual field.
Article in Vision research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of aging on visual attention and peripheral perception.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Differential age-related changes in localizing a target among distractors across an extended visual field.European journal of ageing · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A variety of visual capacities show significant age-related alterations. We assessed suprathreshold contrast and brightness perception across the lifespan in a large sample of healthy participants (N=155; 142) ranging in age from 16 to 80 years. Experiment 1 used a quadrature-phase motion cancelation technique (Blakeslee & McCourt, 2008) to measure canceling contrast (in central vision) for induced gratings at two temporal frequencies (1 Hz and 4 Hz) at two test field heights (0.5° or 2°×38.7°; 0.052 c/d). There was a significant age-related reduction in canceling contrast at 4 Hz, but not at 1 Hz. We find no age-related change in induction magnitude in the 1 Hz condition. We interpret the age-related decline in grating induction magnitude at 4 Hz to reflect a diminished capacity for inhibitory processing at higher temporal frequencies. In Experiment 2 participants adjusted the contrast of a matching grating (0.5° or 2°×38.7°; 0.052 c/d) to equal that of both real (30% contrast, 0.052 c/d) and induced (McCourt, 1982) standard gratings (100% inducing grating contrast; 0.052 c/d). Matching gratings appeared in the upper visual field (UVF) and test gratings appeared in the lower visual field (LVF), and vice versa, at eccentricities of ±7.5°. Average induction magnitude was invariant with age for both test field heights. There was a significant age-related reduction in perceived contrast of stimuli in the LVF versus UVF for both real and induced gratings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.