ArticleJournal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision2020
Grouping ambiguous neural representations: neither identical chromaticity (the stimulus) nor color (the percept) is necessary.
Article in Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Multiple regions, each with the same ambiguous chromatic neural representation, are resolved to have the identical perceived color more often than chance [Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA93, 15508 (1996)PNASA60027-842410.1073/pnas.93.26.15508; J. Opt. Soc. Am. A35, B85 (2018)JOAOD60740-323210.1364/JOSAA.35.000B85]. This reveals that the regions are grouped, but it is unclear whether they are grouped because each one has the identical competing representations of the same stimuli (that is, the same chromaticities) or, alternatively, identical competing representations of the same colors one sees. The current study uses chromatic induction, as in Nat. Neurosci.6, 801 (2003)NANEFN1097-625610.1038/nn1099, to disentangle whether grouping depends on identical (though ambiguous) stimulus chromaticities or on perceived colors, by (1) inducing one chromaticity to appear in two different colors or (2) inducing two different chromaticities to appear in the same color. All stimuli were equiluminant gratings with chromatic inducing and test fields. Three observers were tested, first completing color matches to measure induced color-appearance shifts and second completing grouping measurements using interocular-switch rivalry, a method with rivalrous dichoptic images swapped between the eyes at 3.75 Hz [J. Vis.17, 9 (2017)1534-736210.1167/17.5.9]. Each of two separate areas, one above and one below fixation, had dichoptic rivalry. The two sets of regions had either identical or different chromaticities that could appear either as the same color or not. Observers reported their percepts when both areas above and below fixation were grouped by color or by chromaticity (or neither in an additional experimental condition). All conditions showed significant groupings for every observer, including when neither color nor chromaticity was identical in a "group." Moreover, there was never a significant effect of chromaticity versus color for any observer. This is the result expected if neither color nor chromaticity must match between two regions in order for them to be grouped and suggests that, instead, some other feature drives grouping.
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.