ArticleJournal of vision2024
Ocular-following responses to broadband visual stimuli of varying motion coherence.
Article in Journal of vision, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Ocular-following responses to broadband visual stimuli of varying motion coherence.Journal of vision · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Manipulations of the strength of visual motion coherence have been widely used to study behavioral and neural mechanisms of visual motion processing. Here, we used a novel broadband visual stimulus to test how the strength of motion coherence in different spatial frequency (SF) bands impacts human ocular-following responses (OFRs). Synthesized broadband stimuli were used: a sum of one-dimensional vertical sine-wave gratings (SWs) whose SFs ranged from 0.0625 to 4 cpd in 0.05-log2(cpd) steps. Every 20 ms a proportion of SWs (from 25% to 100%) shifted in the same direction by ¼ of their respective wavelengths (drifting), whereas the rest of the SWs were assigned a random phase (flicker), shifted by half of their respective wavelengths (counterphase), or remained stationary (static): 25% to 100% motion coherence. As expected, the magnitude of the OFRs decreased as the proportion of non-drifting SWs and/or their contrast increased. The effects, however, were SF dependent. For flicker and static SWs, SFs in the range of 0.3 to 0.6 cpd were the most disruptive, whereas, with counterphase SWs, low SFs were the most disruptive. The data were well fit by a model that combined an excitatory drive determined by a SF-weighted sum of drifting components scaled by a SF-weighted contrast normalization term. Flicker, counterphase, or static SWs did not add to or directly impede the drive in the model, but they contributed to the contrast normalization process.
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.