ArticleJournal of vision2018
Determinants of neural responses to disparity in natural scenes.
Article in Journal of vision, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cortical Encoding of Spatial Structure and Semantic Content in 3D Natural Scenes.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- Disparity in Context: Understanding how monocular image content interacts with disparity processing in human visual cortex.NeuroImage · 2021Article
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
We studied disparity-evoked responses in natural scenes using high-density electroencephalography (EEG) in an event-related design. Thirty natural scenes that mainly included outdoor settings with trees and buildings were used. Twenty-four subjects viewed a series of trials composed of sequential two-alternative temporal forced-choice presentation of two different versions (two-dimensional [2D] vs. three-dimensional [3D]) of the same scene interleaved by a scrambled image with the same power spectrum. Scenes were viewed orthostereoscopically at 3 m through a pair of shutter glasses. After each trial, participants indicated with a key press which version of the scene was 3D. Performance on the discrimination was >90%. Participants who were more accurate also tended to respond faster; scenes that were reported more accurately as 3D also led to faster reaction times. We compared visual evoked potentials elicited by scrambled, 2D, and 3D scenes using reliable component analysis to reduce dimensionality. The disparity-evoked response to natural scene stimuli, measured from the difference potential between 2D and 3D scenes, comprised a sustained relative negativity in the dominant response component. The magnitude of the disparity-specific response was correlated with the observer's stereoacuity. Scenes with more homogeneous depth maps also tended to elicit large disparity-specific responses. Finally, the magnitude of the disparity-specific response was correlated with the magnitude of the differential response between scrambled and 2D scenes, suggesting that monocular higher-order scene statistics modulate disparity-specific responses.
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.