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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The (un)suitability of modern liquid crystal displays (LCDs) for vision research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00303 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Masoud Ghodrati, Adam P. Morris, Nicholas Seow Chiang Price |
| Abstract |
Psychophysical and physiological studies of vision have traditionally used cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors to present stimuli. These monitors are no longer easily available, and liquid crystal display (LCD) technology is continually improving; therefore, we characterized a number of LCD monitors to determine if newer models are suitable replacements for CRTs in the laboratory. We compared the spatial and temporal characteristics of a CRT with five LCDs, including monitors designed with vision science in mind (ViewPixx and Display++), "prosumer" gaming monitors, and a consumer-grade LCD. All monitors had sufficient contrast, luminance range and reliability to support basic vision experiments with static images. However, the luminance of all LCDs depended strongly on viewing angle, which in combination with the poor spatial uniformity of all monitors except the VPixx, caused up to 80% drops in effective luminance in the periphery during central fixation. Further, all monitors showed significant spatial dependence, as the luminance of one area was modulated by the luminance of other areas. These spatial imperfections are most pronounced for experiments that use large or peripheral visual stimuli. In the temporal domain, the gaming LCDs were unable to generate reliable luminance patterns; one was unable to reach the requested luminance within a single frame whereas in the other the luminance of one frame affected the luminance of the next frame. The VPixx and Display++ were less affected by these problems, and had good temporal properties provided stimuli were presented for 2 or more frames. Of the consumer-grade and gaming displays tested, and if problems with spatial uniformity are taken into account, the Eizo FG2421 is the most suitable alternative to CRTs. The specialized ViewPixx performed best among all the tested LCDs, followed closely by the Display++; both are good replacements for a CRT, provided their spatial imperfections are considered. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Canada | 2 | 1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 166 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 46 | 26% |
| Researcher | 36 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 12 | 7% |
| Other | 32 | 18% |
| Unknown | 18 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 58 | 33% |
| Neuroscience | 38 | 22% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 7% |
| Engineering | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 9% |
| Unknown | 24 | 14% |
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 18 October 2022.
All research outputs
#7,492,099
of 23,548,905 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,835
of 31,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,162
of 264,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#231
of 475 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,548,905 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,373 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 264,799 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 475 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 50% of its contemporaries.