ArticleJournal of vision2018
Model of parafoveal chromatic and luminance temporal contrast sensitivity of humans and monkeys.
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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Circadian timing does not modulate human temporal contrast sensitivity.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Temporal Sensitivity for Achromatic and Chromatic Flicker across the Visual Cortex.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024Article
- Cone-Opponent Ganglion Cells in the Primate Fovea Tuned to Noncardinal Color Directions.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024Article
- Temporal sensitivity for achromatic and chromatic flicker across the visual cortex.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Variation and heritability of retinal cone ratios in a free-ranging population of rhesus macaques.Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2022Article
- Article
- Perceptual rivalry across animal species.The Journal of comparative neurology · 2020Review
- Temporal information loss in the macaque early visual system.PLoS biology · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Rhesus monkeys are a valuable model for studies of primate visual contrast sensitivity. Their visual systems are similar to that of humans, and they can be trained to perform detection tasks at threshold during neurophysiological recording. However, the stimulus dependence of rhesus monkey contrast sensitivity has not been well characterized. Temporal frequency, color, and retinal eccentricity affect the contrast sensitivity of humans in reasonably well-understood ways. To ask whether these factors affect monkey sensitivity similarly, we measured detection thresholds of two monkeys using a two-alternative, forced-choice task and compared them to thresholds of two human subjects who performed the same task. Stimuli were drifting Gabor patterns that varied in temporal frequency (1-60 Hz), L- and M-cone modulation ratio, and retinal eccentricity (2°-14° from the fovea). Thresholds were fit by a model that assumed a pair of linear detection mechanisms: a luminance contrast detector and a red-green contrast detector. Analysis of model fits indicated that the sensitivity of these mechanisms varied across the visual field, but their temporal and spectral tuning did not. Human and monkey temporal contrast sensitivity was similar across the conditions tested, but monkeys were twofold less sensitive to low-frequency, luminance modulations.
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.