Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38683571›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2024

Stereoscopic slant contrast revisited.

Frederick A A Kingdom, Yoel Yakobi, Xingao Clara Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Frederick A A KingdomMcGill Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology, Montréal General Hospital, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Yoel YakobiMcGill Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology, Montréal General Hospital, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Xingao Clara WangMcGill Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology, Montréal General Hospital, Montréal, QC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The perceived slant of a stereoscopic surface is altered by the presence of a surrounding surface, a phenomenon termed stereo slant contrast. Previous studies have shown that a slanted surround causes a fronto-parallel surface to appear slanted in the opposite direction, an instance of "bidirectional" contrast. A few studies have examined slant contrast using slanted as opposed to fronto-parallel test surfaces, and these also have shown slant contrast. Here, we use a matching method to examine slant contrast over a wide range of combinations of surround and test slants, one aim being to determine whether stereo slant contrast transfers across opposite directions of test and surround slant. We also examine the effect of the test on the perceived slant of the surround. Test slant contrast was found to be bidirectional in virtually all test-surround combinations and transferred across opposite test and surround slants, with little or no decline in magnitude as the test-surround slant difference approached the limit. There was a weak bidirectional effect of the test slant on the perceived slant of the surround. We consider how our results might be explained by four mechanisms: (a) normalization of stereo slant to vertical; (b) divisive normalization of stereo slant channels in a manner analogous to the tilt illusion; (c) interactions between center and surround disparity-gradient detectors; and (d) uncertainty in slant estimation. We conclude that the third of these (interactions between center and surround disparity-gradient detectors) is the most likely cause of stereo slant contrast.

Indexed as

Contrast SensitivityDepth PerceptionHumansPhotic StimulationVision, Binocular

Identifiers

PMID38683571
PMCPMC11059801

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.