Review



full-contrast gabor patches  (MathWorks Inc)


Bioz Verified Symbol MathWorks Inc is a verified supplier  
  • Logo
  • About
  • News
  • Press Release
  • Team
  • Advisors
  • Partners
  • Contact
  • Bioz Stars
  • Bioz vStars
    • 90
      Buy from Supplier

    Structured Review

    MathWorks Inc full-contrast gabor patches
    Procedure. (Left) On each trial, a <t>Gabor</t> patch appeared at the test location (pink circle). (The patches and masks are stylized here for ease of viewing, and the difference between test and distractor patches is exaggerated for visibility). Eleven distractor patches appeared at random locations that changed on each trial. The patches stayed on for 500 ms and were then replaced by a mask until participants responded as to whether an oddball was present or absent. The insets on the right illustrate the predictions and hypothetical results. Between trials 1 and 2, there is a positive relative orientation between test Gabor patches (i.e., trial 1 Gabor is more counterclockwise than trial 2 Gabor). Because distractors are more clockwise than the test, any SD between test patches will pull the test in the counterclockwise direction, away from the distractors. The physical distance between test and distractors is smaller than the perceived distance, thus the proportion of oddball responses should increase. Between trials 2 and 3, the relative orientation between test patches is negative, the physical discrepancy would therefore be larger than the perceived discrepancy (if the appearance is influenced by SD) and the proportion oddball trials should decrease. The hypothesis that performance will depend on relative orientation is illustrated by the orange curve in the cartoon results. The blue curve illustrates the alternative hypothesis of no effect of the previous trial on perceived orientation.
    Full Contrast Gabor Patches, supplied by MathWorks Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/full-contrast gabor patches/product/MathWorks Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    full-contrast gabor patches - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
    90/100 stars

    Images

    1) Product Images from "Serial dependence alters perceived object appearance"

    Article Title: Serial dependence alters perceived object appearance

    Journal: Journal of Vision

    doi: 10.1167/jov.20.13.9

    Procedure. (Left) On each trial, a Gabor patch appeared at the test location (pink circle). (The patches and masks are stylized here for ease of viewing, and the difference between test and distractor patches is exaggerated for visibility). Eleven distractor patches appeared at random locations that changed on each trial. The patches stayed on for 500 ms and were then replaced by a mask until participants responded as to whether an oddball was present or absent. The insets on the right illustrate the predictions and hypothetical results. Between trials 1 and 2, there is a positive relative orientation between test Gabor patches (i.e., trial 1 Gabor is more counterclockwise than trial 2 Gabor). Because distractors are more clockwise than the test, any SD between test patches will pull the test in the counterclockwise direction, away from the distractors. The physical distance between test and distractors is smaller than the perceived distance, thus the proportion of oddball responses should increase. Between trials 2 and 3, the relative orientation between test patches is negative, the physical discrepancy would therefore be larger than the perceived discrepancy (if the appearance is influenced by SD) and the proportion oddball trials should decrease. The hypothesis that performance will depend on relative orientation is illustrated by the orange curve in the cartoon results. The blue curve illustrates the alternative hypothesis of no effect of the previous trial on perceived orientation.
    Figure Legend Snippet: Procedure. (Left) On each trial, a Gabor patch appeared at the test location (pink circle). (The patches and masks are stylized here for ease of viewing, and the difference between test and distractor patches is exaggerated for visibility). Eleven distractor patches appeared at random locations that changed on each trial. The patches stayed on for 500 ms and were then replaced by a mask until participants responded as to whether an oddball was present or absent. The insets on the right illustrate the predictions and hypothetical results. Between trials 1 and 2, there is a positive relative orientation between test Gabor patches (i.e., trial 1 Gabor is more counterclockwise than trial 2 Gabor). Because distractors are more clockwise than the test, any SD between test patches will pull the test in the counterclockwise direction, away from the distractors. The physical distance between test and distractors is smaller than the perceived distance, thus the proportion of oddball responses should increase. Between trials 2 and 3, the relative orientation between test patches is negative, the physical discrepancy would therefore be larger than the perceived discrepancy (if the appearance is influenced by SD) and the proportion oddball trials should decrease. The hypothesis that performance will depend on relative orientation is illustrated by the orange curve in the cartoon results. The blue curve illustrates the alternative hypothesis of no effect of the previous trial on perceived orientation.

    Techniques Used:

    (Top) Grand averages. Proportion of “oddball” responses as a function of the relative orientation between test Gabor patches, for oddball (red) and no-oddball (green) trials. Dashed lines represent bootstrapped median and 95% confidence intervals for each condition, and modulations that differ significantly from the mean are represented as filled dots. The inset shows the median and 95% confidence intervals for the amplitude of individual DoG fits. (Bottom) The mean number of trials per data point.
    Figure Legend Snippet: (Top) Grand averages. Proportion of “oddball” responses as a function of the relative orientation between test Gabor patches, for oddball (red) and no-oddball (green) trials. Dashed lines represent bootstrapped median and 95% confidence intervals for each condition, and modulations that differ significantly from the mean are represented as filled dots. The inset shows the median and 95% confidence intervals for the amplitude of individual DoG fits. (Bottom) The mean number of trials per data point.

    Techniques Used:

    (Top) Grand averages. Sensitivity (d′) and criterion (c) as a function of the relative orientation between test Gabor patches. Dashed lines represent bootstrapped median and 95% confidence intervals for each condition, and modulations that differ significantly from the mean are represented as filled dots. The inset shows the median and 95% between-subject confidence intervals for the difference between maximum and minimum d’ values. (Bottom) Mean number of trials per data point.
    Figure Legend Snippet: (Top) Grand averages. Sensitivity (d′) and criterion (c) as a function of the relative orientation between test Gabor patches. Dashed lines represent bootstrapped median and 95% confidence intervals for each condition, and modulations that differ significantly from the mean are represented as filled dots. The inset shows the median and 95% between-subject confidence intervals for the difference between maximum and minimum d’ values. (Bottom) Mean number of trials per data point.

    Techniques Used:

    DoG fits of the proportion oddball responses as a function of the relative orientation between the current test Gabor patch and the Gabor patch n trials in past (increasingly pale shades of red). The grey line is for illustrative purposes: the proportion of oddball responses as a function of relative orientation between future and current trials could not be fit with a DoG. The bottom inset shows median (and 95% confidence intervals) as a function number of trials into the past.
    Figure Legend Snippet: DoG fits of the proportion oddball responses as a function of the relative orientation between the current test Gabor patch and the Gabor patch n trials in past (increasingly pale shades of red). The grey line is for illustrative purposes: the proportion of oddball responses as a function of relative orientation between future and current trials could not be fit with a DoG. The bottom inset shows median (and 95% confidence intervals) as a function number of trials into the past.

    Techniques Used:



    Similar Products

    full-contrast gabor patches  (MathWorks Inc)
    90
    MathWorks Inc full-contrast gabor patches
    Procedure. (Left) On each trial, a <t>Gabor</t> patch appeared at the test location (pink circle). (The patches and masks are stylized here for ease of viewing, and the difference between test and distractor patches is exaggerated for visibility). Eleven distractor patches appeared at random locations that changed on each trial. The patches stayed on for 500 ms and were then replaced by a mask until participants responded as to whether an oddball was present or absent. The insets on the right illustrate the predictions and hypothetical results. Between trials 1 and 2, there is a positive relative orientation between test Gabor patches (i.e., trial 1 Gabor is more counterclockwise than trial 2 Gabor). Because distractors are more clockwise than the test, any SD between test patches will pull the test in the counterclockwise direction, away from the distractors. The physical distance between test and distractors is smaller than the perceived distance, thus the proportion of oddball responses should increase. Between trials 2 and 3, the relative orientation between test patches is negative, the physical discrepancy would therefore be larger than the perceived discrepancy (if the appearance is influenced by SD) and the proportion oddball trials should decrease. The hypothesis that performance will depend on relative orientation is illustrated by the orange curve in the cartoon results. The blue curve illustrates the alternative hypothesis of no effect of the previous trial on perceived orientation.
    Full Contrast Gabor Patches, supplied by MathWorks Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/full-contrast gabor patches/product/MathWorks Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    full-contrast gabor patches - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier

    Image Search Results


    Procedure. (Left) On each trial, a Gabor patch appeared at the test location (pink circle). (The patches and masks are stylized here for ease of viewing, and the difference between test and distractor patches is exaggerated for visibility). Eleven distractor patches appeared at random locations that changed on each trial. The patches stayed on for 500 ms and were then replaced by a mask until participants responded as to whether an oddball was present or absent. The insets on the right illustrate the predictions and hypothetical results. Between trials 1 and 2, there is a positive relative orientation between test Gabor patches (i.e., trial 1 Gabor is more counterclockwise than trial 2 Gabor). Because distractors are more clockwise than the test, any SD between test patches will pull the test in the counterclockwise direction, away from the distractors. The physical distance between test and distractors is smaller than the perceived distance, thus the proportion of oddball responses should increase. Between trials 2 and 3, the relative orientation between test patches is negative, the physical discrepancy would therefore be larger than the perceived discrepancy (if the appearance is influenced by SD) and the proportion oddball trials should decrease. The hypothesis that performance will depend on relative orientation is illustrated by the orange curve in the cartoon results. The blue curve illustrates the alternative hypothesis of no effect of the previous trial on perceived orientation.

    Journal: Journal of Vision

    Article Title: Serial dependence alters perceived object appearance

    doi: 10.1167/jov.20.13.9

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Procedure. (Left) On each trial, a Gabor patch appeared at the test location (pink circle). (The patches and masks are stylized here for ease of viewing, and the difference between test and distractor patches is exaggerated for visibility). Eleven distractor patches appeared at random locations that changed on each trial. The patches stayed on for 500 ms and were then replaced by a mask until participants responded as to whether an oddball was present or absent. The insets on the right illustrate the predictions and hypothetical results. Between trials 1 and 2, there is a positive relative orientation between test Gabor patches (i.e., trial 1 Gabor is more counterclockwise than trial 2 Gabor). Because distractors are more clockwise than the test, any SD between test patches will pull the test in the counterclockwise direction, away from the distractors. The physical distance between test and distractors is smaller than the perceived distance, thus the proportion of oddball responses should increase. Between trials 2 and 3, the relative orientation between test patches is negative, the physical discrepancy would therefore be larger than the perceived discrepancy (if the appearance is influenced by SD) and the proportion oddball trials should decrease. The hypothesis that performance will depend on relative orientation is illustrated by the orange curve in the cartoon results. The blue curve illustrates the alternative hypothesis of no effect of the previous trial on perceived orientation.

    Article Snippet: Stimuli were full-contrast Gabor patches generated with Psychtoolbox for Matlab ( ; ; ).

    Techniques:

    (Top) Grand averages. Proportion of “oddball” responses as a function of the relative orientation between test Gabor patches, for oddball (red) and no-oddball (green) trials. Dashed lines represent bootstrapped median and 95% confidence intervals for each condition, and modulations that differ significantly from the mean are represented as filled dots. The inset shows the median and 95% confidence intervals for the amplitude of individual DoG fits. (Bottom) The mean number of trials per data point.

    Journal: Journal of Vision

    Article Title: Serial dependence alters perceived object appearance

    doi: 10.1167/jov.20.13.9

    Figure Lengend Snippet: (Top) Grand averages. Proportion of “oddball” responses as a function of the relative orientation between test Gabor patches, for oddball (red) and no-oddball (green) trials. Dashed lines represent bootstrapped median and 95% confidence intervals for each condition, and modulations that differ significantly from the mean are represented as filled dots. The inset shows the median and 95% confidence intervals for the amplitude of individual DoG fits. (Bottom) The mean number of trials per data point.

    Article Snippet: Stimuli were full-contrast Gabor patches generated with Psychtoolbox for Matlab ( ; ; ).

    Techniques:

    (Top) Grand averages. Sensitivity (d′) and criterion (c) as a function of the relative orientation between test Gabor patches. Dashed lines represent bootstrapped median and 95% confidence intervals for each condition, and modulations that differ significantly from the mean are represented as filled dots. The inset shows the median and 95% between-subject confidence intervals for the difference between maximum and minimum d’ values. (Bottom) Mean number of trials per data point.

    Journal: Journal of Vision

    Article Title: Serial dependence alters perceived object appearance

    doi: 10.1167/jov.20.13.9

    Figure Lengend Snippet: (Top) Grand averages. Sensitivity (d′) and criterion (c) as a function of the relative orientation between test Gabor patches. Dashed lines represent bootstrapped median and 95% confidence intervals for each condition, and modulations that differ significantly from the mean are represented as filled dots. The inset shows the median and 95% between-subject confidence intervals for the difference between maximum and minimum d’ values. (Bottom) Mean number of trials per data point.

    Article Snippet: Stimuli were full-contrast Gabor patches generated with Psychtoolbox for Matlab ( ; ; ).

    Techniques:

    DoG fits of the proportion oddball responses as a function of the relative orientation between the current test Gabor patch and the Gabor patch n trials in past (increasingly pale shades of red). The grey line is for illustrative purposes: the proportion of oddball responses as a function of relative orientation between future and current trials could not be fit with a DoG. The bottom inset shows median (and 95% confidence intervals) as a function number of trials into the past.

    Journal: Journal of Vision

    Article Title: Serial dependence alters perceived object appearance

    doi: 10.1167/jov.20.13.9

    Figure Lengend Snippet: DoG fits of the proportion oddball responses as a function of the relative orientation between the current test Gabor patch and the Gabor patch n trials in past (increasingly pale shades of red). The grey line is for illustrative purposes: the proportion of oddball responses as a function of relative orientation between future and current trials could not be fit with a DoG. The bottom inset shows median (and 95% confidence intervals) as a function number of trials into the past.

    Article Snippet: Stimuli were full-contrast Gabor patches generated with Psychtoolbox for Matlab ( ; ; ).

    Techniques: