↓ Skip to main content

A Model for a Filling-in Process Triggered by Edges Predicts “Conflicting” Afterimage Effects

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
A Model for a Filling-in Process Triggered by Edges Predicts “Conflicting” Afterimage Effects
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2018.00559
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hadar Cohen-Duwek, Hedva Spitzer

Abstract

The goal of our research was to develop a compound computational model that predicts the "opposite" effects of the alternating aftereffects stimuli, such as the "color dove illusion" (Barkan and Spitzer, 2017), and the "filling in the afterimage after the image" (van Lier et al., 2009). The model is based on a filling-in mechanism, through a diffusion equation where the color and intensity of the perceived surface are obtained through a diffusion process of color from the stimulus edges. The model solves the diffusion equation with boundary conditions that takes the locations of the chromatic edges of the chromatic inducer (chromatic stimulus) and the achromatic remaining contours into account. These contours (edges) trigger the diffusion process. The same calculations are done for both types of afterimage effects, with the only difference related to the location of the remaining contour. While a gradient toward the inducing color produces a perception of the complementary color, an opposite gradient yields the perception of the same color as that of the chromatic inducer. Furthermore, we show that the same computational model can also predict new alternating aftereffects stimuli, such as the spiral stimulus, and the averaging of colors in alternating afterimage stimuli described by Anstis et al. (2012). The suggested model is able to predict most of the additional properties related to the "conflicting" phenomena that have been recently described in the literature, and thus supports the idea that a shared visual mechanism is responsible for both the positive and the negative effects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Researcher 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 7 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 4 25%
Computer Science 2 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 6 38%
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 31 July 2020.
All research outputs
#19,954,338
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#8,672
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,937
of 341,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#203
of 238 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 341,403 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 238 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.