ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
How the window of visibility varies around polar angle.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. 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
Contrast sensitivity, the amount of contrast required to detect or discriminate an object, depends on spatial frequency (SF): The Contrast Sensitivity Function (CSF) peaks at intermediate SFs and drops at lower and higher SFs and is the basis of computational models of visual object recognition. The CSF varies from foveal to peripheral vision, but only a couple studies have assessed changes around polar angle of the visual field. Sensitivity is generally better along the horizontal than the vertical meridian, and better at the lower vertical than the upper vertical meridian, yielding polar angle asymmetries. Here, we investigate CSF attributes at polar angle locations at both group and individual levels, using Hierarchical Bayesian Modeling. This method enables precise estimation of CSF parameters by decomposing the variability of the dataset into multiple levels and analyzing covariance across observers. At the group level, peak contrast sensitivity and corresponding spatial frequency with the highest sensitivity are higher at the horizontal than vertical meridian, and at the lower than upper vertical meridian. At an individual level, CSF attributes (e.g., maximum sensitivity, the most preferred SF) across locations are highly correlated, indicating that although the CSFs differ across locations, the CSF at one location is predictive of the CSF at another location. Within each location, the CSF attributes co-vary, indicating that CSFs across individuals vary in a consistent manner (e.g., as maximum sensitivity increases, so does the SF at which sensitivity peaks), but more so at the horizontal than the vertical meridian locations. These results show similarities and uncover some critical polar angle differences across locations and individuals, suggesting that the CSF should not be generalized across iso-eccentric locations around the visual field. Our window of visibility varies with polar angle: It is enhanced and more consistent at the horizontal meridian.
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.