ArticlePLoS computational biology2018
The empirical characteristics of human pattern vision defy theoretically-driven expectations.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2018. 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.
- Masking, crowding, and grouping: Connecting low and mid-level vision.Journal of vision · 2022Article
- Emergence of crowding: The role of contrast and orientation salience.Journal of vision · 2021Article
- Constant curvature segments as building blocks of 2D shape representation.Journal of experimental psychology. General · 2021Article
- Mechanisms of Spectrotemporal Modulation Detection for Normal- and Hearing-Impaired Listeners.Trends in hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Contrast is the most fundamental property of images. Consequently, any comprehensive model of biological vision must incorporate this attribute and provide a veritable description of its impact on visual perception. Current theoretical and computational models predict that vision should modify its characteristics at low contrast: for example, it should become broader (more lowpass) to protect from noise, as often demonstrated by individual neurons. We find that the opposite is true for human discrimination of elementary image elements: vision becomes sharper, not broader, as contrast approaches threshold levels. Furthermore, it suffers from increased internal variability at low contrast and it transitions from a surprisingly linear regime at high contrast to a markedly nonlinear processing mode in the low-contrast range. These characteristics are hard-wired in that they happen on a single trial without memory or expectation. Overall, the empirical results urge caution when attempting to interpret human vision from the standpoint of optimality and related theoretical constructs. Direct measurements of this phenomenon indicate that the actual constraints derive from intrinsic architectural features, such as the co-existence of complex-cell-like and simple-cell-like components. Small circuits built around these elements can indeed account for the empirical results, but do not appear to operate in a manner that conforms to optimality even approximately. More generally, our results provide a compelling demonstration of how far we still are from securing an adequate computational account of the most basic operations carried out by human vision.
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.