Articlei-Perception2014
Shape recognition elicited by microsecond flashes is not based on photon quantity.
Article in i-Perception, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Masking the Integration of Complementary Shape Cues.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2019Article
- Article
- Evaluating letter recognition, flicker fusion, and the Talbot-Plateau law using microsecond-duration flashes.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is generally thought that the perceptual impact of a brief flash of light is determined by the quantity of photons the flash delivers. This means that only the total quantity of photons is important below a critical duration of about 30-100 ms. Recent findings have challenged this concept and the present work provides additional evidence that it is not correct. The first experiment reported here delivered a given quantity of photons in under 200 μs, either as a single threshold-intensity flash or as multiple flashes at the same intensity. The single flash was ineffective at eliciting recognition, but multiple flashes became progressively more effective as the number of flashes was increased. A second experiment varied the number of 10 μs flashes. The effectiveness of multiple flashes was far higher than would be expected on the basis of the total quantity of photons being delivered. The results of both experiments suggest that the brief transitions of intensity provided by the flashes are far more important than the quantity of photons. A final experiment examined the combined impact from two threshold-intensity flashes as the interstimulus interval was increased. The pair members were able to combine their influence for at least 100 ms. These results call for more attention to how very brief light flashes generate signals that convey image content.
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.