The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Perceptual learning in contrast discrimination and the (minimal) role of context
Open accessAbstract
Unlike most visual tasks, contrast discrimination has been reported to be unchanged by practice (Dorais & Sagi, 1997; Adini, Sagi, & Tsodyks, 2002), unless practice is undertaken in the presence of flankers (context-enabled learning, Adini et al., 2002). Here we show that under experimental conditions nearly identical to those in the no-flanker practice experiment of Adini et al. (2002), practice significantly improved contrast discrimination. Moreover, in a separate experiment, we found that practice without flankers can improve contrast discrimination to a level only reached with flankers in Adini et al. (2002), but further practice with flankers produces no further improvement of contrast discrimination. These results call into question whether the "context-enabled learning" proposed by Adini et al. (2002) is different from regular contrast learning without flankers. In separate experiments, we found that contrast learning is tuned to spatial frequency, orientation, retinal location, and, unexpectedly, contrast. We also replicated Sagi, Adini, Tsodyks, and Wilkonsky's (2003) more recent finding that no regular contrast learning occurs if reference contrasts are randomly interleaved (contrast roving), and further demonstrated that flankers have no effect on contrast learning under contrast roving, another piece of evidence equating "context-enabled learning" to regular contrast learning. The contrast specificity of learning and the lack of learning under contrast roving provide new evidence in favor of a multiple contrast-selective channels model of contrast discrimination, and against saturating transducer models and multiplicative noise models.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hierarchical Bayesian inference in the visual cortex
Lee, T. S., & Mumford, D. (2003) · Journal of the Optical Society of America A · doi:10.1364/josaa.20.001434 · Cited by 1,473 · cited 1×
“After about 150 msec, it is expected that effects of late decision stages will affect V1 processing through feedback (Lee & Mumford, 2003).”
BackgroundPhysiological Correlates of Perceptual Learning in Monkey V1 and V2
Ghose, G. M., Yang, T., & Maunsell, J. H. R. (2002) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00690.2001 · Cited by 310
Three remarks on perceptual learning
Mollon, J. D., & Danilova, M. V. (1996) · Spatial Vision · doi:10.1163/156856896x00051 · Cited by 175 · cited 4×
“However, as noted above, Vogel and Orban (1994) and Mollon and Danilova (1996) showed that non-transfer of learning, often thought to be early, can be explained by central mechanisms. The massive interconnectedness of cortex makes it difficult to separate early and late stages of processing even when using brain-imagi…”
BackgroundInfluential
Cited by
Enhancing the contrast sensitivity function through action video game training
Li, R., Polat, U., Makous, W., & Bavelier, D. (2009) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.2296 · Cited by 468
Beyeler, M., Rokem, A., Boynton, G. M., & Fine, I. (2017) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/aa795e · Cited by 102
Metadata
- Authors
- Yu, C., Klein, S. A., & Levi, D. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Vision
- Published
- 2004-03-17
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 4
- ISSN
- 1534-7362 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2139866744
- Cited by
- 192
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 2.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.