ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2023
Featural representation and internal noise underlie the eccentricity effect in contrast sensitivity.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2023. 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Human visual performance for basic visual dimensions (e.g., contrast sensitivity and acuity) peaks at the fovea and decreases with eccentricity. The eccentricity effect is related to the larger surface area of the visual cortex corresponding to the fovea, but it is unknown if differential feature tuning contributes to this eccentricity effect. Here, we investigated two system-level computations underlying the eccentricity effect: featural representation (tuning) and internal noise. Observers (both sexes) detected a Gabor embedded in filtered white noise which appeared at the fovea or one of four perifoveal locations. We used psychophysical reverse correlation to estimate the weights assigned by the visual system to a range of orientations and spatial frequencies (SFs) in noisy stimuli, which are conventionally interpreted as perceptual sensitivity to the corresponding features. We found higher sensitivity to task-relevant orientations and SFs at the fovea than the perifovea, and no difference in selectivity for either orientation or SF. Concurrently, we measured response consistency using a double-pass method, which allowed us to infer the level of internal noise by implementing a noisy observer model. We found lower internal noise at the fovea than perifovea. Finally, individual variability in contrast sensitivity correlated with sensitivity to and selectivity for task-relevant features as well as with internal noise. Moreover, the behavioral eccentricity effect mainly reflects the foveal advantage in orientation sensitivity compared to other computations. These findings suggest that the eccentricity effect stems from a better representation of task-relevant features and lower internal noise at the fovea than at the perifovea.
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.