ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2017
Suppression and Contrast Normalization in Motion Processing.
Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ocular-following responses to broadband visual stimuli of varying motion coherence.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- Weighted power summation and contrast normalization mechanisms account for short-latency eye movements to motion and disparity of sine-wave gratings and broadband visual stimuli in humans.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- Manipulating the Fourier spectra of stimuli comprising a two-frame kinematogram to study early visual motion-detecting mechanisms: Perception versus short latency ocular-following responses.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- Short-latency ocular-following responses: Weighted nonlinear summation predicts the outcome of a competition between two sine wave gratings moving in opposite directions.Journal of vision · 2020Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Sensory neurons are activated by a range of stimuli to which they are said to be tuned. Usually, they are also suppressed by another set of stimuli that have little effect when presented in isolation. The interactions between preferred and suppressive stimuli are often quite complex and vary across neurons, even within a single area, making it difficult to infer their collective effect on behavioral responses mediated by activity across populations of neurons. Here, we investigated this issue by measuring, in human subjects (three males), the suppressive effect of static masks on the ocular following responses induced by moving stimuli. We found a wide range of effects, which depend in a nonlinear and nonseparable manner on the spatial frequency, contrast, and spatial location of both stimulus and mask. Under some conditions, the presence of the mask can be seen as scaling the contrast of the driving stimulus. Under other conditions, the effect is more complex, involving also a direct scaling of the behavioral response. All of this complexity at the behavioral level can be captured by a simple model in which stimulus and mask interact nonlinearly at two stages, one monocular and one binocular. The nature of the interactions is compatible with those observed at the level of single neurons in primates, usually broadly described as divisive normalization, without having to invoke any scaling mechanism.
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.