ArticleJournal of vision2022
Linking perceived to physical contrast: Comparing results from discrimination and difference-scaling experiments.
Article in Journal of vision, 2022. 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.
- Using simulation to disambiguate transducer and noise.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Estimating the contribution of early and late noise in vision from psychophysical data.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Asymmetries between achromatic increments and decrements: Perceptual scales and discrimination thresholds.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- Achromatic and chromatic perceived contrast are reduced in the visual periphery.Journal of vision · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Psychophysical approaches that allow us to estimate how perceived stimulus intensity is linked to physical intensity are import tools for studying nonlinear transformations of visual signals within different visual pathways. Here, we investigated how stimulus contrast is encoded in achromatic and chromatic pathways using simple grating stimuli. We compared two experimental approaches to this question: contrast discrimination (increment detection thresholds measured on contrast pedestals) and the maximum likelihood difference scaling (MLDS) approach introduced by Maloney and Yang (2003). The results of both experiments are expressed using simple models that include a transducer function mapping physical contrast to an internal signal the observer uses in making judgments, and an estimate of the variability of this representation (internal "noise"). We found that the transducers derived from both experiments have a similar form, but occupy different ranges of physical contrast in different stimulus conditions, reflecting difference in contrast sensitivity. This is consistent with past discrimination results, and in the difference-scaling case provides new evidence supporting the idea that suprathreshold chromatic and achromatic contrast are processed similarly, once differences in contrast sensitivity are taken into account. Model estimates of internal noise were higher in the difference-scaling experiment than the discrimination experiment, a finding we attribute to a difference in task complexity. Finally, we fit an alternative version of the MLDS model in which internal noise increased with response level. This alternative was no better at predicting holdout data in a cross-validation analysis than the original constant-variance model.
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.