ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
How distinct sources of nuisance variability in natural images and scenes limit human stereopsis.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. 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.
- Feature-specific divisive normalization improves natural image encoding for depth perception.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Stimulus variability-a form of nuisance variability-is a primary source of perceptual uncertainty in everyday natural tasks. How do different properties of natural images and scenes contribute to this uncertainty? Using binocular disparity as a model system, we report a systematic investigation of how various forms of natural stimulus variability impact performance in a stereo-depth discrimination task. With stimuli sampled from a stereo-image database of real-world scenes having pixel-by-pixel ground-truth distance data, three human observers completed two closely related double-pass psychophysical experiments. In the two experiments, each human observer responded twice to ten thousand unique trials, in which twenty thousand unique stimuli were presented. New analytical methods reveal, from this data, the specific and nearly dissociable effects of two distinct sources of natural stimulus variability-variation in luminance-contrast patterns and variation in local-depth structure-on discrimination performance, as well as the relative importance of stimulus-driven-variability and internal-noise in determining performance limits. Between-observer analyses show that both stimulus-driven sources of uncertainty are responsible for a large proportion of total variance, have strikingly similar effects on different people, and-surprisingly-make stimulus-by-stimulus responses more predictable (not less). The consistency across observers raises the intriguing prospect that image-computable models can make reasonably accurate performance predictions in natural viewing. Overall, the findings provide a rich picture of stimulus factors that contribute to human perceptual performance in natural scenes. The approach should have broad application to other animal models and other sensory-perceptual tasks with natural or naturalistic stimuli.
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.