ArticleScientific reports2021
Stimulus dependence of interocular suppression.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. 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.
- Comparative Effects of Monocular and Stereopsis Training on Visual Acuity and Stereoacuity in Children With Amblyopia.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- The hidden impact of myopia severity on interocular suppression in myopia: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Progressive changes in binocular perception from stereopsis to rivalry.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- The Orientation Selectivity of Dichoptic Masking Suppression is Contrast Dependent in Amblyopia.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interocular suppression is the phenomenon in which the signal from one eye inhibits the other eye in the presence of dissimilar images. Various clinical and laboratory-based tests have been used to assess suppression, which vary in color, contrast, and stimulus size. These stimulus variations may yield different spatial extents of suppression, which makes it difficult to compare the outcomes. To evaluate the role of stimulus characteristics, we measured the suppression zone using a binocular rivalry paradigm in normally-sighted observers by systematically varying the stimulus parameters. The stimuli consist of a constantly visible horizontal reference seen by one eye while two vertical suppressors were presented to the other eye. With a keypress, the suppressors appeared for 1 s, to induce a transient suppression zone in the middle part of the reference. Subjects adjusted the width between the suppressors to determine the zone. The zone decreased significantly with increasing spatial frequency and lower contrast. The width was 1.4 times larger than the height. The zone was smaller with negative compared to positive contrast polarity but independent of eye dominance, luminance, and colored filters. A departure from scale invariance was captured with a model suggesting a stimulus-dependent and a small fixed non-stimulus-dependent portion.
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.