Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27021783›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2016

Coding accuracy on the psychophysical scale.

Lubomir Kostal, Petr Lansky

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Lubomir KostalInstitute of Physiology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Videnska 1083, 14220 Prague 4, Czech Republic.
Petr LanskyInstitute of Physiology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Videnska 1083, 14220 Prague 4, Czech Republic.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sensory neurons are often reported to adjust their coding accuracy to the stimulus statistics. The observed match is not always perfect and the maximal accuracy does not align with the most frequent stimuli. As an alternative to a physiological explanation we show that the match critically depends on the chosen stimulus measurement scale. More generally, we argue that if we measure the stimulus intensity on the scale which is proportional to the perception intensity, an improved adjustment in the coding accuracy is revealed. The unique feature of stimulus units based on the psychophysical scale is that the coding accuracy can be meaningfully compared for different stimuli intensities, unlike in the standard case of a metric scale.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsModels, NeurologicalAcoustic StimulationAdaptation, PhysiologicalAnimalsEvoked PotentialsHumansNerve NetNeuronsPhysical StimulationPsychophysics

Identifiers

PMID27021783
PMCPMC4810520

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.