↓ Skip to main content

The Effect of Interocular Phase Difference on Perceived Contrast

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Effect of Interocular Phase Difference on Perceived Contrast
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0034696
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel H. Baker, Stuart A. Wallis, Mark A. Georgeson, Tim S. Meese

Abstract

Binocular vision is traditionally treated as two processes: the fusion of similar images, and the interocular suppression of dissimilar images (e.g. binocular rivalry). Recent work has demonstrated that interocular suppression is phase-insensitive, whereas binocular summation occurs only when stimuli are in phase. But how do these processes affect our perception of binocular contrast? We measured perceived contrast using a matching paradigm for a wide range of interocular phase offsets (0-180°) and matching contrasts (2-32%). Our results revealed a complex interaction between contrast and interocular phase. At low contrasts, perceived contrast reduced monotonically with increasing phase offset, by up to a factor of 1.6. At higher contrasts the pattern was non-monotonic: perceived contrast was veridical for in-phase and antiphase conditions, and monocular presentation, but increased a little at intermediate phase angles. These findings challenge a recent model in which contrast perception is phase-invariant. The results were predicted by a binocular contrast gain control model. The model involves monocular gain controls with interocular suppression from positive and negative phase channels, followed by summation across eyes and then across space. Importantly, this model--applied to conditions with vertical disparity--has only a single (zero) disparity channel and embodies both fusion and suppression processes within a single framework.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 8%
Unknown 22 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 21%
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Other 3 13%
Other 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 7 29%
Psychology 5 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 4 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 12 April 2012.
All research outputs
#7,104,120
of 22,664,267 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#84,030
of 193,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,269
of 160,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,404
of 3,704 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,267 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,506 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 160,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,704 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.