ArticleJournal of vision2025
A comparative analysis of perceptual noise in lateral and depth motion: Evidence from eye tracking.
Article in Journal of vision, 2025. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The characterization of how precisely we perceive visual speed has traditionally relied on psychophysical judgments in discrimination tasks. Such tasks are often considered laborious and susceptible to biases, particularly without the involvement of highly trained participants. Additionally, thresholds for motion-in-depth perception are frequently reported as higher compared to lateral motion, a discrepancy that contrasts with everyday visuomotor tasks. In this research, we rely on a smooth pursuit model, based on a Kalman filter, to quantify speed observational uncertainties. This model allows us to distinguish between additive and multiplicative noise across three conditions of motion dynamics within a virtual reality setting: random walk, linear motion, and nonlinear motion, incorporating both lateral and depth motion components. We aim to assess tracking performance and perceptual uncertainties for lateral versus motion-in-depth. In alignment with prior research, our results indicate diminished performance for depth motion in the random walk condition, characterized by unpredictable positioning. However, when velocity information is available and facilitates predictions of future positions, perceptual uncertainties become more consistent between lateral and in-depth motion. This consistency is particularly noticeable within ranges where retinal speeds overlap between these two dimensions. Significantly, additive noise emerges as the primary source of uncertainty, largely exceeding multiplicative noise. This predominance of additive noise is consistent with computational accounts of visual motion. Our study challenges earlier beliefs of marked differences in processing lateral versus in-depth motions, suggesting similar levels of perceptual uncertainty and underscoring the significant role of additive noise.
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.