Literature DB >> 21172373

Shape and size discrimination compared.

Jacob Nachmias1.   

Abstract

Observers presented with pairs of figures differing in area (SIZE) or aspect ratio (SHAPE) spontaneously make use of both height and width differences. whether or not they are forced to do so by between-interval jittering or even instructed to do so. SHAPE discrimination is considerably better than SIZE discrimination. The superiority of SHAPE discrimination is probably due to partial correlation between the encoding noise of height and width of a figure. Discrimination of height differences is seemingly increased (decreased) by negatively (positively) correlated width differences, relative to leaving width unchanged. This is true whether the different types of trials are presented in separate blocks or intermixed. Perhaps SIZE and SHAPE comparisons are always made and their decision variables are optimally combined. The difference between SIZE and SHAPE discrimination is reduced, if not reversed, when figures are presented simultaneously rather than successively. This interaction between type of task and mode of presentation, may be due to the increased amount of correlation between test and standard figures of the encoding noise common to the two dimensions of each figure.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21172373     DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2010.12.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vision Res        ISSN: 0042-6989            Impact factor:   1.886


  8 in total

1.  Size discrimination in barn owls as compared to humans.

Authors:  Torsten Stemmler; Petra Nikolay; Aline Nüttgens; Jan Skorupa; Julius Orlowski; Hermann Wagner
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2017-12-11       Impact factor: 1.836

2.  Separating the contributions of primary and unwanted cues in psychophysical studies.

Authors:  Huanping Dai; Christophe Micheyl
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2012-07-30       Impact factor: 8.934

3.  Computation of relative numerosity of circular dot textures.

Authors:  Sabine Raphael; Barbara Dillenburger; Michael Morgan
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2013-02-12       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  A horse's eye view: size and shape discrimination compared with other mammals.

Authors:  Masaki Tomonaga; Kiyonori Kumazaki; Florine Camus; Sophie Nicod; Carlos Pereira; Tetsuro Matsuzawa
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 3.703

5.  Evidence for a Global Sampling Process in Extraction of Summary Statistics of Item Sizes in a Set.

Authors:  Midori Tokita; Sachiyo Ueda; Akira Ishiguchi
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-05-13

6.  The computation of relative numerosity, size and density.

Authors:  Sabine Raphael; Michael J Morgan
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2015-01-14       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  An illusion predicted by V1 population activity implicates cortical topography in shape perception.

Authors:  Melchi M Michel; Yuzhi Chen; Wilson S Geisler; Eyal Seidemann
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2013-09-15       Impact factor: 24.884

8.  A texture-processing model of the 'visual sense of number'.

Authors:  M J Morgan; S Raphael; M S Tibber; Steven C Dakin
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2014-09-07       Impact factor: 5.349

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.