Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31205668›Full record

Articlei-Perception

Differences in Stereoscopic Luster Evoked by Static and Dynamic Stimuli.

Gunnar Wendt, Franz Faul

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in i-Perception. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A simple model of binocular luster.Journal of vision · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

2 authors.

Gunnar Wendt
Franz FaulInstitut für Psychologie, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7158-2920

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We compared the classic static stereoscopic luster phenomenon with a recently described dynamic variant ("counter modulation") to investigate whether they are related to the same or different processes. In the experiments, we presented pairs of center-surround stimuli haploscopically and measured the effect of the contrast between center colors on perceived luster. The center colors were either static or temporally modulated. In addition, we examined five color conditions (one achromatic, two equiluminant, and two mixed conditions) and three background conditions that influence the channel-wise polarities of the contrast of the two centers to the common surround. The results for static and dynamic stimuli differed in several ways, suggesting that they depend on different mechanisms: Compared with the static version, in dynamic stimuli, luster was perceived at markedly lower contrasts, did not depend on the sign of the contrast polarities, and appeared more steady. However, both phenomena seem also similar in some respects: In both cases, equiluminant stimuli led to lustrous impressions that were considerably less strong than those evoked by stimuli containing luminance variation, and the strength of the perceived luster was generally boosted with reversed contrast polarities.

Indexed as

binocular visioncolorlightness or brightnesssurfaces or materials

Identifiers

PMID31205668
PMCPMC6537268

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.