ArticleJournal of vision2020
Detection of occluding targets in natural backgrounds.
Article in Journal of vision, 2020. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Distinct system-level computations underlie perceptual variation across the visual field.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Optimal visual search with highly heuristic decision rules.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Phase-dependent asymmetry of pattern masking in natural images explained by intrinsic position uncertainty.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- A method to integrate and classify normal distributions.Journal of vision · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Detection of target objects in the surrounding environment is a common visual task. There is a vast psychophysical and modeling literature concerning the detection of targets in artificial and natural backgrounds. Most studies involve detection of additive targets or of some form of image distortion. Although much has been learned from these studies, the targets that most often occur under natural conditions are neither additive nor distorting; rather, they are opaque targets that occlude the backgrounds behind them. Here, we describe our efforts to measure and model detection of occluding targets in natural backgrounds. To systematically vary the properties of the backgrounds, we used the constrained sampling approach of Sebastian, Abrams, and Geisler (2017). Specifically, millions of calibrated gray-scale natural-image patches were sorted into a 3D histogram along the dimensions of luminance, contrast, and phase-invariant similarity to the target. Eccentricity psychometric functions (accuracy as a function of retinal eccentricity) were measured for four different occluding targets and 15 different combinations of background luminance, contrast, and similarity, with a different randomly sampled background on each trial. The complex pattern of results was consistent across the three subjects, and was largely explained by a principled model observer (with only a single efficiency parameter) that combines three image cues (pattern, silhouette, and edge) and four well-known properties of the human visual system (optical blur, blurring and downsampling by the ganglion cells, divisive normalization, intrinsic position uncertainty). The model also explains the thresholds for additive foveal targets in natural backgrounds reported in Sebastian et al. (2017).
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.