1,720,987 research outputs found
Saccadic suppression measured by steady-state visual evoked potentials
Full text link<p>Dataset related to the following publication:</p>
<p>Chen, J., Valsecchi, M. & Gegenfurtner, K.R. (2019). Saccadic suppression measured by steady-state visual evoked potentials. <em>Journal of Neurophysiology, DIO: 10.1152/jn.00712.2018</em></p>
<p>Please refer to "data description.txt" for details about the data. </p>
Color weight photometry
No full text<p>Dataset relative to the following publication:</p>
<p>Koenderink, J.J., van Doorn, A.& Gegenfurtner, K.R. (2016) Color weight photometry. Vision Research, in press.</p>
<p>See the file README.txt for further information.</p>This work was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) grant Ge-879/9, DFG Sonderforschungsbereich SFB TRR 135 and BMBF-NSF grant 01GQ1304. Jan Koenderink was supported by a Humboldt-Award from the Alexander-von-Humboldt-Foundation
Healthy Aging Is Associated With Decreased Risk-Taking in Motor Decision-Making
No full text<p>The Zip file contains all data relative to the publication.</p>
<p>Data files are identified as follows:</p>
<p>Part[Y/O for Younger/Older]Sess[Session Number]</p>
<p>A description of the variables is contained in the file VARIABLE CODES.txt</p>
<p> </p>
Experimental procedure in the Learning session (A) and in the Recognition session (B) of Experiment 3.
No full text<p>The learning session was identical to the one of Experiment 1 (with 1 s exposure). In the Recognition session observer indicated the type of the display in which the image had been presented in the previous session by choosing the corresponding target. For each observer the 3D version of the image was always presented on the same side of the screen.</p
Experimental procedure in the Learning session (A) and in the Recognition session (B) of Experiment 2.
No full text<p>In the Recognition session observer indicated which of the two images had been presented in the previous session (“old” picture). Target images were always paired with a distractor from the same category.</p
Average performance in terms of percentage correct responses and d` in Experiment 2, as a function of Display Type.
No full text<p>Error bars are between-observer 95% confidence intervals of the mean. The 6% increase in the rate of correct responses with 3D presentation was statistically significant.</p
Steady-state visually evoked potentials reveal partial size constancy in early visual cortex
No full text<p>Dataset related to the following publication:</p>
<p>Chen, J., McManus, M., Valsecchi, M., Harris, L.R. & Gegenfurtner, K.R. (2019). Steady-state visually evoked potentials reveal partial size constancy in early visual cortex. <em>Journal of Vision</em>, 19(6), 8.</p>
<p>Please refer to "data description.txt" for details about the data. </p>
Average Hit Rate as a function of Display Type, Picture Category and Exposure Time in Experiment 1.
No full text<p>Correct recognitions of old pictures are classified as Hits. The Blue and purple brackets indicate data from the Short Exposure and Long Exposure groups, respectively. Gray bars represent the corresponding average False Alarm Rate. Incorrect recognitions of new pictures are classified as False Alarms. Error bars are between-observer 95% confidence intervals of the mean.</p
Average d′ (red and green bars) and c (gray bars) values as a function of Display Type in the two Groups.
No full text<p>Error bars are between-observer 95% confidence intervals of the mean. Sensitivity is not influenced by stereo presentation but increases significantly with longer exposure. In both groups observers are biased not to report 3D presentation (c values are on average negative).</p
Results from Experiment 3 in terms of Hit and False Alarm rates (A) and of Sensitivity and Criterion (B).
No full text<p>Hits are defined as the correct indication that an image had been presented in 3D. Data are presented separately for each category of pictures (colored bars) and for the overall data (black bars). Error bars represent between-observer 95% confidence intervals of the mean. Sensitivity (d`) did not differ from 0 in any of the single categories nor in the overall data. Observers were biased to report that car and building images had been presented in 3D, whereas they tended to report that forest images had been presented in 2D.</p
- …
