Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32692826›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2020

A computational observer model of spatial contrast sensitivity: Effects of photocurrent encoding, fixational eye movements, and inference engine.

Nicolas P Cottaris, Brian A Wandell, Fred Rieke, David H Brainard

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05004649 (The Effects of Stimulus Variability in Natural Visual Scenes), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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.

NCT05004649 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

The Effects of Stimulus Variability in Natural Visual Scenes

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of PennsylvaniaRan2021 to 2022Enrolled19ConditionsVisual PerceptionArmsPsychophysical task
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nicolas P Cottaris,.
Brian A Wandell,.
Fred Rieke,.
David H Brainard,.
University of Pennsylvania · USStanford University · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We have recently shown that the relative spatial contrast sensitivity function (CSF) of a computational observer operating on the cone mosaic photopigment excitations of a stationary retina has the same shape as human subjects. Absolute human sensitivity, however, is 5- to 10-fold lower than the computational observer. Here we model how additional known features of early vision affect the CSF: fixational eye movements and the conversion of cone photopigment excitations to cone photocurrents (phototransduction). For a computational observer that uses a linear classifier applied to the responses of a stimulus-matched linear filter, fixational eye movements substantially change the shape of the CSF by reducing sensitivity above 10 c/deg. For a translation-invariant computational observer that operates on the squared response of a quadrature-pair of linear filters, the CSF shape is little changed by eye movements, but there is a two fold reduction in sensitivity. Phototransduction dynamics introduce an additional two fold sensitivity decrease. Hence, the combined effects of fixational eye movements and phototransduction bring the absolute CSF of the translation-invariant computational observer to within a factor of 1 to 2 of the human CSF. We note that the human CSF depends on processing of the retinal representation by many thalamo-cortical neurons, which are individually quite noisy. Our modeling suggests that the net effect of post-retinal noise on contrast-detection performance, when considered at the neural population and behavioral level, is quite small: The inference mechanisms that determine the CSF, presumably in cortex, make efficient use of the information carried by the cone photocurrents of the fixating eye.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationContrast SensitivityEye MovementsFixation, OcularHumansRetinaRetinal Cone Photoreceptor CellsSoftwareSpatial ProcessingVision, Ocular

Identifiers

PMID32692826
PMCPMC7424933
OpenAlexW3044076437

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.