ArticleScientific reports2024
Absolute and relative disparity mechanisms revealed by an equivalent noise analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recovery of depth perception in adults with abnormal binocular vision.Vision research · 2026Article
- Receptive fields from single-neuron recording and MRI reveal similar information coding for binocular depth.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The precision of stereopsis and vergence are ultimately limited by internal binocular disparity noise. Here we propose an equivalent noise model with both global and local internal disparity noises to provide a unified explanation of both absolute and relative disparity thresholds. To test this model, we developed a psychophysical procedure to measure the equivalent internal disparity noise by adding external disparity noise to random-Gabor-patch stereograms. We used the method of constant stimuli to measure the minimum and maximum disparity thresholds (Dmin and Dmax) for both absolute and relative disparity. Consistent with previous studies, we found that Dmin thresholds are substantially worse for absolute disparity than for relative disparity. We tested three relative disparity mechanisms: (1) the difference between the monocular separations of targets projecting to the two eyes; (2) the direct measurement of relative disparity; and (3) the difference of absolute disparities of targets. Computing the difference of absolute disparities when detecting relative disparity, Mechanism 3 cancels global noise, resulting in a much lower relative Dmin threshold, and provides a reasonable fit to the experimental data. We also found that the presence of as much as 2400 arcsec of external disparity noise does not appear to affect the Dmax threshold. This observation suggests that Dmax is implicated in a mechanism that disregards the disparity variance of individual items, relying instead on the average disparity across all items, supporting the depth model proposed in our previous study (Ding & Levi, 2021), which posits distinct mechanisms governing Dmin and Dmax thresholds.
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.