ArticleJournal of vision2025
Ocular drift shakes the stationary view on pattern vision.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The mechanisms by which the visual system extracts key features (i.e., edges) from the visual input remain not fully understood. As reflected in the term spatial vision, pattern vision is traditionally assumed to operate on stationary visual inputs. However, our eyes are never truly still. Involuntary eye movements, specifically ocular drift, continuously alter the visual input during fixations and redistribute its power, emphasizing high spatial frequency contents. In this study, we examine the role of ocular drift on edge sensitivity in noise. We show that drift-induced shifts in stimulus power lead to better predictions of the empirical data, consistent with the human contrast sensitivity function. We then incorporate drift into a mechanistic model of spatial vision to test whether this further improves model predictions. Surprisingly, the original spatial model outperforms the drift-enhanced version. It does so in an interesting way: It artificially compensates for the absence of drift by redistributing the activity across its spatial frequency channels in later processing stages, effectively mimicking the effect of a dynamic input without explicitly modeling it. By contrast, a simpler model with a single spatial frequency channel benefits from drift but performs poorly when drift is removed. These findings suggest that standard model architectures inherently favor a stationary view of visual processing, which could result in self-confirming theories. Incorporating the dynamic nature of the visual input may offer a more accurate model of how the brain processes key features of natural scenes. However, doing so requires a critical reassessment of long-standing frameworks in visual neuroscience.
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.