Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35237931›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2022

How are local orientation signals pooled?

Jüri Allik, Mai Toom, Richard Naar, Aire Raidvee

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Jüri AllikInstitute of Psychology, University of Tartu, Näituse 2, 50409, Tartu, Estonia. juri.allik@ut.ee.
Mai ToomInstitute of Psychology, University of Tartu, Näituse 2, 50409, Tartu, Estonia.
Richard NaarInstitute of Psychology, University of Tartu, Näituse 2, 50409, Tartu, Estonia.
Aire RaidveeInstitute of Psychology, University of Tartu, Näituse 2, 50409, Tartu, Estonia.

Funding

Estonian Research Council PRG1151
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual perception is capable of pooling multiple local orientation signals into a single more accurate summary orientation. However, there is still a lack of systematic inquiry into which summary statistics are implemented in that process. Here, the task was to recognize in which direction, clockwise or counter-clockwise, the mean orientation of a set of randomly distributed Gabor patches (N = 1, 2, 4, and 8) was rotated from the implicit vertical. The mean orientation discrimination accuracy did not improve with the increase of the number N of elements in proportion to the square-root-N, as could be expected if noisy internal representations were arithmetically averaged. The Proportion of Informative Elements (PIE), defined as the percentage of elements having an orientation different from the vertical, also affected the discrimination precision, violating the arithmetic averaging rules. The decrease in the orientation discrimination precision with the increase of the PIE would suggest that the orientation pooling could be more adequately described by a quadratic or higher power mean. Thus, we parameterized the averaging process for the power parameter of the generalized mean formula. The results indicate that different pooling rules in different trials may apply, for example, the arithmetic mean in some and the maximal deviation rule in others. It is concluded that pooling of orientation information is a relatively inaccurate process for which different perceptual cues and their combination rules can be used.

Indexed as

OrientationVisual PerceptionCuesHumansEnsemble perceptionGeneralized meanPooling orientationProportion of informative elementsRepresentational noiseStatistical averaging

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.