↓ Skip to main content

Mechanisms for similarity matching in disparity measurement

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

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
Mechanisms for similarity matching in disparity measurement
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.01014
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ross Goutcher, Paul B. Hibbard

Abstract

Early neural mechanisms for the measurement of binocular disparity appear to operate in a manner consistent with cross-correlation-like processes. Consequently, cross-correlation, or cross-correlation-like procedures have been used in a range of models of disparity measurement. Using such procedures as the basis for disparity measurement creates a preference for correspondence solutions that maximize the similarity between local left and right eye image regions. Here, we examine how observers' perception of depth in an ambiguous stereogram is affected by manipulations of luminance and orientation-based image similarity. Results show a strong effect of coarse-scale luminance similarity manipulations, but a relatively weak effect of finer-scale manipulations of orientation similarity. This is in contrast to the measurements of depth obtained from a standard cross-correlation model. This model shows strong effects of orientation similarity manipulations and weaker effects of luminance similarity. In order to account for these discrepancies, the standard cross-correlation approach may be modified to include an initial spatial frequency filtering stage. The performance of this adjusted model most closely matches human psychophysical data when spatial frequency filtering favors coarser scales. This is consistent with the operation of disparity measurement processes where spatial frequency and disparity tuning are correlated, or where disparity measurement operates in a coarse-to-fine manner.

X Demographics

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.
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 %
United States 1 6%
Unknown 16 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 18%
Researcher 3 18%
Student > Master 3 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 12%
Professor 1 6%
Other 3 18%
Unknown 2 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 4 24%
Engineering 2 12%
Social Sciences 2 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Physics and Astronomy 1 6%
Other 3 18%
Unknown 4 24%
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 08 January 2014.
All research outputs
#22,350,992
of 24,943,708 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#26,917
of 33,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#279,921
of 318,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#166
of 180 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,943,708 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 318,207 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 180 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.