↓ Skip to main content

Adaptation to Skew Distortions of Natural Scenes and Retinal Specificity of Its Aftereffects

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Adaptation to Skew Distortions of Natural Scenes and Retinal Specificity of Its Aftereffects
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01158
Pubmed ID
Authors

Selam W. Habtegiorgis, Katharina Rifai, Markus Lappe, Siegfried Wahl

Abstract

Image skew is one of the prominent distortions that exist in optical elements, such as in spectacle lenses. The present study evaluates adaptation to image skew in dynamic natural images. Moreover, the cortical levels involved in skew coding were probed using retinal specificity of skew adaptation aftereffects. Left and right skewed natural image sequences were shown to observers as adapting stimuli. The point of subjective equality (PSE), i.e., the skew amplitude in simple geometrical patterns that is perceived to be unskewed, was used to quantify the aftereffect of each adapting skew direction. The PSE, in a two-alternative forced choice paradigm, shifted toward the adapting skew direction. Moreover, significant adaptation aftereffects were obtained not only at adapted, but also at non-adapted retinal locations during fixation. Skew adaptation information was transferred partially to non-adapted retinal locations. Thus, adaptation to skewed natural scenes induces coordinated plasticity in lower and higher cortical areas of the visual pathway.

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 28%
Student > Master 4 16%
Researcher 4 16%
Other 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 4 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 32%
Neuroscience 3 12%
Physics and Astronomy 3 12%
Linguistics 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 7 28%
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 12 August 2017.
All research outputs
#18,560,904
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,434
of 30,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,175
of 312,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#485
of 583 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,186 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 312,390 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 583 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.