Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32106238›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Control of visual adaptation depends upon task.

Mark Vergeer, Stephen A Engel

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 51% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mark VergeerDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States of America.
Stephen A EngelDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5241-6433
University of Minnesota · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The visual system optimizes its functioning for a given environment through processes collectively called adaptation. It is currently unknown, however, whether adaptation is affected by the particular task the observer performs within that environment. Two experiments tested whether this is the case. Observers adapted to high contrast grating patterns, and the decay of adaptation was measured using a version of the tilt-aftereffect, while they performed two different secondary tasks. One task involved judging the luminance of a small circular spot at fixation, and was expected to be unaffected by adaptation. The other secondary task involved judging a low contrast grating, and adaptation was expected to make this task difficult by reducing the visibility of the grating. Identical displays containing both a fixation spot and a grating were used for both tasks. Tilt-aftereffects were smaller when subjects concurrently performed the grating task than when they performed the fixation task. These results suggest that the control of adaptation, in this case its decay, is sensitive to the nature of the task the observer is performing. Adaptation may attempt to optimize vision with respect to many different criteria simultaneously; task is likely one of the criteria included in this process.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalPattern Recognition, VisualTask Performance and AnalysisAdaptation, OcularAdultFigural AftereffectHumansVisual PerceptionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32106238
PMCPMC7046198
OpenAlexW3008862349

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.