ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022
The matching rule of Panum's limiting case and its influencing factors.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Panum's limiting case is one of the typical configurations of monocular occlusion region. The matching rule of Panum's limiting case is the key to understanding how monocular occlusion region produces stereopsis. There are currently two main views on the matching rule of Panum's limiting case, namely double fusion and uniqueness constraint. This paper further discusses its matching mechanism on the basis of previous studies. Methods: In this study, fold line Panum's stimuli were used to study the matching rule of Panum's limiting case. In Experiment 1, fixation position was adopted to present the stimulus in a short time to explore the matching rules in Panum's limiting case. In Experiment 2, the effect of fixation position on Panum's limiting case matching results was further investigated. Results: The results of Experiment 1 show that when stimuli are presented in a short period of time, the reported result that a single feature in one eye may be matched alternately with two features in the other eye. This matching rule is called "fast alternative matching" in this article. The results of Experiment 2 results show that the position of the fixation could affect the matching result of participants. Conclusion: In conclusion, the matching rule of Panum's limiting case is fast alternative matching, and the matching result is related to the attention state of the participant. These results not only provide a new perspective for matching rules in Panum's limiting case, but also show that depth perception results in stereopsis can be influenced by top-down cognitive processing. This study provides a theoretical basis for studying the formation of stereopsis in the monocular region to a certain extent. In summary, the matching rule of Panum's limiting case is fast alternative matching. In previous studies, the perceived result of double fusion may be caused by fast alternative matching. Also, the matching results are related to the participant's state of attention, which suggests that the depth perception results of stereopsis are influenced by top-down cognitive processing.
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.