| Title |
A behavioral task for the validation of a gaze-contingent simulated scotoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavior Research Methods, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13428-013-0321-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Franziska Geringswald, Florian Johannes Baumgartner, Stefan Pollmann |
| Abstract |
Gaze-contingent displays provide a valuable method in visual research for controlling visual input and investigating its visual and cognitive processing. Although the body of research using gaze-contingent retinal stabilization techniques has grown considerably during the last decade, only few studies have been concerned with the reliability of the specific real-time simulations applied. Using a Landolt ring discrimination task, we present a behavioral validation of gaze-contingent central scotoma simulation in healthy observers. Importantly, behavioral testing is necessary to show whether the simulation impairs foveal processing of visual information. This test becomes even more crucial when researchers are faced with null results in a task performed with the scotoma, as compared with a control condition. It must be ruled out that the lack of behavioral effects results from a type II error caused by improper implementation before conclusions about foveal contributions to the given task may be drawn. In our experiment, the scotoma effectively prevented foveal processing of the visual stimuli, leading to significantly reduced response accuracies, as compared with unimpaired vision. Moreover, the final fixation at the time of the participants' responses was placed close to the target position in the unimpaired condition, whereas the distance to the target was enhanced with the scotoma, indicating that the observers were not able to discriminate visual target stimuli from distractors, due to the scotoma. The present work presents a validated behavioral testing method for the efficiency of gaze-contingent scotoma simulations, including code for implementation. In addition, solutions for common methodological problems are discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 37 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 12 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 7 | 18% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 13% |
| Engineering | 4 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 15 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,170,530
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#1,364
of 2,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,037
of 210,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#9
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 210,064 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.