Articlei-Perception
How are different contrast effects on binocular luster spatially integrated?
Article in i-Perception. 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
In previous studies with dichoptic center-ring-surround stimuli, we found that two properties of the ring element have a strong influence on the phenomenon of binocular luster. The strength of the lustrous impression in the central target patch varies with increasing ring width, with the direction of this variation (increasing or decreasing) depending on the ring's luminance. In this study, we used stimuli in which the ring was split into segments with two different luminances that in uniform rings had opposite effects on perceived luster. The aim was to investigate how the lustrous impression is influenced by combining a weaker and a stronger contrast effect, in particular how they are spatially integrated by the visual system. In a psychophysical matching experiment, subjects had to assess the strength of the lustrous impression in a series of test stimuli with different ring widths, numbers of ring segments, and spatial proportions between the two ring parts. We found that the results of the experiment could neither be explained by a winner-takes-all integration (assuming that the lustrous response is completely determined by the stronger effect) nor by a balanced integration process (assuming equal weights for the two effects). Instead, both effects contribute to the overall lustrous response, with the stronger effect having a greater weight. Interestingly, the magnitude of this weight varied considerably between different groups of subjects. We found two main trends in the data, representing two different types of sensitivity to the phenomenon of binocular luster.
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.