% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Zeng:841202,
      author       = {Zeng, Hang and Kreutzer, Sylvia and Fink, Gereon R. and
                      Weidner, Ralph},
      title        = {{T}he source of visual size adaptation},
      journal      = {Journal of vision},
      volume       = {17},
      number       = {14},
      issn         = {1534-7362},
      address      = {Rockville, Md.},
      publisher    = {ARVO},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2017-08295},
      pages        = {8},
      year         = {2017},
      abstract     = {Size adaptation describes the tendency of the visual system
                      to adjust neural responsiveness of size representations
                      after prolonged exposure to particular stimulations. A
                      larger (or smaller) adaptor stimulus influences the
                      perceived size of a similar test stimulus shown
                      subsequently. Size adaptation may emerge on various
                      processing levels. Functional representations of the adaptor
                      to which the upcoming stimulus is adapted may be coded early
                      in the visual system mainly reflecting retinal size.
                      Alternatively, size adaptation may involve higher order
                      processes that take into account additional information such
                      as an object's estimated distance from the observer, hence
                      reflecting perceived size. The present study investigated
                      whether size adaptation is based on the retinal or the
                      perceived size of an adaptor stimulus. A stimulus' physical
                      and perceived sizes were orthogonally varied using perceived
                      depth via binocular disparity, employing polarized 3D
                      glasses. Four different adaptors were used, which varied in
                      physical size, perceived size, or both. Two pairs of
                      adaptors which were identical in physical size did not cause
                      significantly different adaptation effects although they
                      elicited different perceived sizes which were sufficiently
                      large to produce differential aftereffects when induced by
                      stimuli that physically differed in size. In contrast, there
                      was a significant aftereffect when adaptors differed in
                      physical size but were matched in perceived size. Size
                      adaptation was thus unaffected by perceived size and
                      binocular disparity. Our data suggest that size adaptation
                      emerges from neural stages where information from both eyes
                      is still coded in separate channels without binocular
                      interactions, such as the lateral geniculate nucleus.},
      cin          = {INM-3},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-3-20090406},
      pnm          = {572 - (Dys-)function and Plasticity (POF3-572)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-572},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000418241500008},
      pubmed       = {pmid:29228141},
      doi          = {10.1167/17.14.8},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/841202},
}