↓ Skip to main content

The venetian-blind effect: a preference for zero disparity or zero slant?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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 venetian-blind effect: a preference for zero disparity or zero slant?
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00836
Pubmed ID
Authors

Björn N. S. Vlaskamp, Phillip Guan, Martin S. Banks

Abstract

When periodic stimuli such as vertical sinewave gratings are presented to the two eyes, the initial stage of disparity estimation yields multiple solutions at multiple depths. The solutions are all frontoparallel when the sinewaves have the same spatial frequency; they are all slanted when the sinewaves have quite different frequencies. Despite multiple solutions, humans perceive only one depth in each visual direction: a single frontoparallel plane when the frequencies are the same and a series of small slanted planes-Venetian blinds-when the frequencies are quite different. These percepts are consistent with a preference for solutions that minimize absolute disparity or overall slant. The preference for minimum disparity and minimum slant are identical for gaze at zero eccentricity; we dissociated the predictions of the two by measuring the occurrence of Venetian blinds when the stimuli were viewed in eccentric gaze. The results were generally quite consistent with a zero-disparity preference (Experiment 1), but we also observed a shift toward a zero-slant preference when the edges of the stimulus had zero slant (Experiment 2). These observations provide useful insights into how the visual system constructs depth percepts from a multitude of possible depths.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 6%
Spain 1 6%
Unknown 15 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 24%
Student > Bachelor 3 18%
Researcher 3 18%
Student > Master 2 12%
Professor 1 6%
Other 3 18%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 7 41%
Psychology 2 12%
Neuroscience 2 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 2 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 November 2016.
All research outputs
#16,967,884
of 24,943,708 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,818
of 33,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,579
of 292,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#716
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,943,708 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 292,957 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.