ArticleVision research2016
Influence of background size, luminance and eccentricity on different adaptation mechanisms.
Article in Vision research, 2016. 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ambient lighting alters pattern electroretinogram P50 peak time and spatial sensitivity.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Dynamics of contrast adaptation in central and peripheral vision.Journal of vision · 2019Article
- QD laser eyewear as a visual field aid in a visual field defect model.Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Mechanisms of light adaptation have been traditionally explained with reference to psychophysical experimentation. However, the neural substrata involved in those mechanisms remain to be elucidated. Our study analyzed links between psychophysical measurements and retinal physiological evidence with consideration for the phenomena of rod-cone interactions, photon noise, and spatial summation. Threshold test luminances were obtained with steady background fields at mesopic and photopic light levels (i.e., 0.06-110cd/m(2)) for retinal eccentricities from 0° to 15° using three combinations of background/test field sizes (i.e., 10°/2°, 10°/0.45°, and 1°/0.45°). A two-channel Maxwellian view optical system was employed to eliminate pupil effects on the measured thresholds. A model based on visual mechanisms that were described in the literature was optimized to fit the measured luminance thresholds in all experimental conditions. Our results can be described by a combination of visual mechanisms. We determined how spatial summation changed with eccentricity and how subtractive adaptation changed with eccentricity and background field size. According to our model, photon noise plays a significant role to explain contrast detection thresholds measured with the 1/0.45° background/test size combination at mesopic luminances and at off-axis eccentricities. In these conditions, our data reflect the presence of rod-cone interaction for eccentricities between 6° and 9° and luminances between 0.6 and 5cd/m(2). In spite of the increasing noise effects with eccentricity, results also show that the visual system tends to maintain a constant signal-to-noise ratio in the off-axis detection task over the whole mesopic range.
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.