ArticlePLoS computational biology2026
Identification of letters distorted by physiologically-inspired spatial scrambling.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2026. 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 the geniculostriate pathway of the human visual system, neuronal projections carry signals from a particular retinal locus in parallel from one anatomical area to the next. Imprecision in the fidelity of these projections would place constraints on the ability of the system to perform tasks requiring positional information. We investigated the impact that "spatial scrambling" between stages would have on visual performance. We consider two stages in a simple canonical model of the early visual cortex where scrambling might occur: either the input to the first orientation-tuned mechanisms (analogous to V1 simple cells), or the output from those mechanisms. These are referred as "subcortical" (SCS) and "cortical scrambling" (CS). We developed a wavelet decomposition and resynthesis algorithm to mimic these effects, and measured human performance in letter identification affected by the two types of scrambling. Our results showed SCS and CS have distinguishable effects on both perceived noisiness of letters and letter identification threshold. Comparing human performance against a suite of pre-trained and custom convolutional neural networks (CNNs) that were trained on the scrambled stimuli, relative efficiency (calculated from the ratio of human:CNN thresholds) is higher for CS than SCS. However, in modelling human inefficiency by reducing the proportion of wavelets available to the CNNs, humans are less efficient in CS than SCS. These differences in efficiencies show humans are better at processing orientation redundant stimuli (CS) than orientation noisy stimuli (SCS). We hypothesize this reflects differences in integration properties at the input and output stages of simple cells in the cortex.
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.