Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37676671›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2023

Measuring the reliability of binocular rivalry.

Miriam Acquafredda, Izel D Sari, Cecilia Steinwurzel, Claudia Lunghi, Paola Binda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Miriam AcquafreddaDepartment of Translational Research on New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Izel D SariLaboratoire des systèmes perceptifs, Département d'études cognitives, École normale supérieure, PSL University, CNRS, Paris, France.
Cecilia SteinwurzelDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Claudia LunghiLaboratoire des systèmes perceptifs, Département d'études cognitives, École normale supérieure, PSL University, CNRS, Paris, France.
Paola BindaDepartment of Translational Research on New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Binocular rivalry is a widely used tool in sensory and cognitive neuroscience to investigate different aspects of vision and cognition. The dynamics of binocular rivalry (e.g., duration of perceptual dominance phases and mixed percept proportions) differ across individuals; based on rivalry dynamics, it is also possible to calculate an index of ocular dominance (by comparing the perceptual dominance of the images in the two eyes). In this study, we investigated the reliability of binocular rivalry dynamics using different methods for dichoptic stimulation and different rivalry stimuli. For the three main indices we defined (ocular dominance, phase durations and mixed percept proportions), we found a high test-retest reliability across sessions. Moreover, the test-retest reliability of the ocular dominance index was predictable from its internal consistency, supporting its stability over time. Phase durations and mixed percept proportions, in contrast, had worse test-retest reliability than expected based on internal consistency, indicating that these parameters are susceptible to state-dependent changes. Our results support the use of the ocular dominance index and binocular rivalry in the measurement of sensory eye dominance and its plasticity, but advise caution when investigating the association between phase durations or mixed percepts and stable characteristics like psychological traits or disorders.

Indexed as

CognitionDominance, OcularEyeHumansReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID37676671
PMCPMC10501494

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.