Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33927294›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Stimulus dependence of interocular suppression.

Wei Hau Lew, Scott B Stevenson, Daniel R Coates

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Wei Hau LewUniversity of Houston College of Optometry, 4901 Calhoun Rd, Houston, TX, 77004, USA. wlew@central.uh.edu.
Scott B StevensonUniversity of Houston College of Optometry, 4901 Calhoun Rd, Houston, TX, 77004, USA.
Daniel R CoatesUniversity of Houston College of Optometry, 4901 Calhoun Rd, Houston, TX, 77004, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Vision DisparityAdultDominance, OcularFemaleHumansLightMalePhotic StimulationVision, BinocularVisual PerceptionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33927294
PMCPMC8085212

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.