Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35344021›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2022

Testing a formal theory of perception is not easy: Comments on Yu, Todd & Petrov (2021) and Yu, Petrov & Todd (2021).

Tadamasa Sawada, Zygmunt Pizlo

Open access · goldAbstract readComment
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Tadamasa SawadaSchool of Psychology, HSE University Moscow, Russian Federation.
Zygmunt PizloDepartment of Cognitive Sciences, University of California-Irvine Irvine, CA, USA.
National Research University Higher School of Economics · RUUniversity of California, Irvine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Yu, Todd, and Petrov (2021, Journal of Vision) and their follow-up study (Yu, Petrov, & Todd, 2021, i-Perception) aimed at evaluating the role of three-dimensional (3D) symmetry in binocular shape perception by comparing their experimental data to predictions they derived from our computational models. We point out in this note that their predictions were incorrect, so their studies can neither reject nor support our models of 3D shape perception. We explain (1) the role of the data and the constraints in solving ill-posed inverse problems, (2) the role of binocular depth-order, as opposed to binocular depth-intervals in shape perception, (3) the nature and the effect of 3D compactness as an a priori constraint, and (4) the implications of the separation of binocular disparity and stereoacuity in the two functional streams in the visual cortex.

Indexed as

Depth PerceptionVisual CortexFollow-Up StudiesHumansVision DisparityVisual Acuity

Identifiers

PMID35344021
PMCPMC8976923
OpenAlexW4220929256

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.