| Title |
A consumer-grade LCD monitor for precise visual stimulation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavior Research Methods, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13428-018-1018-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gong-Liang Zhang, Ai-Su Li, Cheng-Guo Miao, Xun He, Ming Zhang, Yang Zhang |
| Abstract |
Because they were used for decades to present visual stimuli in psychophysical and psychophysiological studies, cathode ray tubes (CRTs) used to be the gold standard for stimulus presentation in vision research. Recently, as CRTs have become increasingly rare in the market, researchers have started using various types of liquid-crystal display (LCD) monitors as a replacement for CRTs. However, LCDs are typically not cost-effective when used in vision research and often cannot reach the full capacity of a high refresh rate. In this study we measured the temporal and spatial characteristics of a consumer-grade LCD, and the results suggested that a consumer-grade LCD can successfully meet all the technical demands in vision research. The tested LCD, working in a flash style like that of CRTs, demonstrated perfect consistency for initial latencies across locations, yet showed poor spatial uniformity and sluggishness in reaching the requested luminance within the first frame. After these drawbacks were addressed through software corrections, the candidate monitor showed performance comparable or superior to that of CRTs in terms of both spatial and temporal homogeneity. The proposed solution can be used as a replacement for CRTs in vision research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 31% |
| Researcher | 8 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 6 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 14 | 33% |
| Engineering | 5 | 12% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 9 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 10 December 2020.
All research outputs
#4,614,286
of 25,653,515 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#561
of 2,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,154
of 351,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#15
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,653,515 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,564 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
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 351,285 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.