Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29129731›Full record

ArticleVision research2017

Individual differences in visual science: What can be learned and what is good experimental practice?

John D Mollon, Jenny M Bosten, David H Peterzell, Michael A Webster

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vision research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing 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

66 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Three distinct components of pragmatic language use: Social conventions, intonation, and world knowledge-based causal reasoning.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Episodic memory without autonoetic consciousness.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

John D MollonDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Jenny M BostenSchool of Psychology, University of Sussex, United Kingdom.
David H PeterzellCollege of Psychology, John F. Kennedy University, United States.
Michael A WebsterDepartment of Psychology and Graduate Program in Integrative Neuroscience, University of Nevada, Reno, United States. Electronic address: mwebster@unr.edu.

Funding

SALIENCE, ADAPTATION, AND NATURAL IMAGE STATISTICSR01EY010834 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA RENO · PI WEBSTER, MICHAEL A · 2000 to 2023
$4.6M
COLOR CONTRAST ADAPTATIONR29EY010834 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA RENO · PI WEBSTER, MICHAEL A · 1995 to 1999
–
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY010834NEI NIH HHS R29 EY010834
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We all pass out our lives in private perceptual worlds. The differences in our sensory and perceptual experiences often go unnoticed until there emerges a variation (such as 'The Dress') that is large enough to generate different descriptions in the coarse coinage of our shared language. In this essay, we illustrate how individual differences contribute to a richer understanding of visual perception, but we also indicate some potential pitfalls that face the investigator who ventures into the field.

Indexed as

Research DesignBiomedical ResearchHumansIndividualityVision, OcularVisual PerceptionBehavioural geneticsCorrelationExperimental designFactor analysisIndividual differencesSpecific abilitiesVisionVisual mechanisms

Identifiers

PMID29129731
PMCPMC5730466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.