ArticleNeuroscience of consciousness2021
What is visible across the visual field?
Article in Neuroscience of consciousness, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reappraising intuitions about consciousness.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Self-relevant facial threat attracts peripheral attention.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Transsaccadic perception of changes in object regularity.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- More than words: can free reports adequately measure the richness of perception?Neuroscience of consciousness · 2024Article
- Minimal theory of 3D vision: new approach to visual scale and visual shape.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Review
- How much can we differentiate at a brief glance: revealing the truer limit in conscious contents through the massive report paradigm (MRP).Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- Integrated world modeling theory expanded: Implications for the future of consciousness.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2022Article
- The Radically Embodied Conscious Cybernetic Bayesian Brain: From Free Energy to Free Will and Back Again.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is sometimes claimed that because the resolution and sensitivity of visual perception are better in the fovea than in the periphery, peripheral vision cannot support the same kinds of colour and sharpness percepts as foveal vision. The fact that a scene nevertheless seems colourful and sharp throughout the visual field then poses a puzzle. In this study, I use a detailed model of human spatial vision to estimate the visibility of certain properties of natural scenes, including aspects of colourfulness, sharpness, and blurriness, across the visual field. The model is constructed to reproduce basic aspects of human contrast and colour sensitivity over a range of retinal eccentricities. I apply the model to colourful, complex natural scene images, and estimate the degree to which colour and edge information are present in the model's representation of the scenes. I find that, aside from the intrinsic drift in the spatial scale of the representation, there are not large qualitative differences between foveal and peripheral representations of 'colourfulness' and 'sharpness'.
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.