Data for Figures 2-4

Data for Figures 2-

Stereo-pairs of the stimulus.

<p>Stimuli used for foveal global stereo sensitivity of vertical (A) and horizontal (B) corrugations. The foveal stimulus had a sigma of 9°. The luminance-defined carrier is band-pass noise whereas the stereo corrugation is a 1-D vertical (A) or horizontal(B) sinusoid for the foveal stimulus.</p

Similar Mechanisms Underlie the Detection of Horizontal and Vertical Disparity Corrugations

<div><p>Our aim was to compare sensitivity for horizontal and vertical disparity corrugations and to resolve whether these stimuli are processed by similar or radically different underlying mechanisms. We measure global disparity sensitivity as a function of carrier spatial frequency for equi-detectable carriers and found a similar optimal carrier relationship for vertical and horizontal stimuli. Sensitivity as a function of corrugation spatial frequency for stimuli of comparable spatial summation and composed of optimal, equi-detectable narrowband carriers did not significantly differ for vertical and horizontal stimuli. A small anisotropy was revealed when fixed, high contrast broadband carriers were used. In a separate discrimination-at-threshold experiment, multiple mechanisms of similar tuning were revealed to underlie the detection of both vertical and horizontal disparity corrugations. We conclude that the processing of the horizontal and vertical disparity corrugations occurs along similar lines.</p></div

Discrimination of disparity corrugation spatial frequency at detection threshold.

<p>Foveal results from discrimination at detection threshold for 3 different pairs of horizontally oriented corrugation disparity spatial frequencies: 0.25 vs. 0.5 c/d (A), 0.25 vs. 1 c/d (B), and 1 vs. 4 c/d (C). The detection results from the 2×2 AFC paradigm are shown by small filled square stimuli and the discrimination results by small filled triangle symbols. The estimated threshold is shown by larger unfilled symbols. The ‘*’ indicates that perfect discrimination is possible at detection threshold as the thresholds for detection and discrimination are statistically indistinguishable (see <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0084846#pone.0084846.s002" target="_blank">Text S2</a>).</p

Optimum carriers for horizontal and vertical corrugations.

<p>Optimum carrier luminance spatial frequency (c/d) is plotted against corrugation disparity spatial frequency (c/d) as a function of the average across subjects including the standard deviation. Panel A represents optimum carriers across a range of vertically oriented sine-wave corrugations while panel B represents optimum carriers across a range of horizontally oriented sine-wave corrugations. The solid bilinear line in both panels indicates the line of best fit for the data.</p

Disparity corrugation sensitivity for different carriers.

<p>Averaged optimum disparity corrugation sensitivity (min⁻¹) is plotted against corrugation disparity spatial frequency (c/d) for a foveal stimulus whose number of spatial cycles did not vary with corrugation disparity spatial frequency. Disparity sensitivity functions (DSFs) are measured with the carrier consisting of either narrowband (1 octave) filtered noise set to 7 times its contrast detection threshold (7X CDT), broadband (6 octaves) filtered noise set to 7X CDT, or broadband (6 octaves) filtered noise set to 80% contrast for vertically oriented sine wave corrugations in panel A and horizontally oriented sine wave corrugations in panel B. In panels A and B, sensitivity to the narrowband noise carrier (1 octave) is represented by black diamonds with negative standard deviations and sensitivity to the broadband noise carrier (6 octaves) is represented by white circles (7X CDT) and white squares (80% contrast) with positive standard deviations. Panel C plots the disparity sensitivity function (DSF) for both vertical and horizontal corrugations whose carrier consisted of broadband (6 octaves) filtered noise set to 7X CDT. Panel D plots the DSF for both vertical and horizontal corrugations whose carrier consisted of broadband (6 octaves) filtered noise set to 80% contrast. For both panels C and D, the black circles represent sensitivity for vertically oriented sine-wave corrugations with negative standard deviations. The white circles represent sensitivity for horizontally oriented sine-wave corrugations with positive standard deviations.</p

The averaged fitted parameters of the four dichoptic pairs.

<p>Left panel shows the averaged ‘Gamma’ of the four dichoptic pairs. ‘Gamma’ denotes the non-linearity in the binocular combination, the less the gamma, the less the non-linearity; Right panel shows the averaged effective signal ratio at balance point of the four dichoptic pairs. Effective signal ratio at balance point indicates the signal ratio that is needed to balance the dominant eye with the nondominant eye in binocular combination. Error bars represent standard errors. Significance of the compartment between the second-order dichoptic pairs and first-order dichoptic pair is marked in the figure: ***, <i>p</i><0.001, 2-tailed T test.</p

Correlations of the effective signal ratios at the balance point between the three second-order dichoptic pairs.

<p>a) Correlated carrier vs. uncorrelated carrier; b) Correlated carrier vs. anti-correlated carrier; c) Uncorrelated carrier vs. anti-correlated carrier. In each panel, different dots represent different subjects; the solid line represents a linear fitting.</p

Binocularly perceived phase as a function of interocular signal ratios for the four dichoptic pairs.

<p>Results of the seven observers (N1–N7) and their averages are shown in separate panels. In each panel, the vertical axis represents perceived phase of the cyclopean grating, the horizontal axis represents interocular signal ratio (Dominant eye/nondominant eye); the four kinds of symbols represent data for four dichoptic pairs: ‘○’, first-order stimuli; ‘•’, second-order stimuli with correlated carrier in two eyes; ‘▴’, second-order stimuli with anti-correlated carries in two eyes; ‘▪’, second-order stimuli with uncorrelated stimuli. The colored solid lines represent prediction of a modified gain control model (see data fitting in the Methods part). The horizontal line in the middle of each panel indicates expected output when the perceived phase is zero. Error bars represent standard errors.</p

Table1_Antibiotic use at planned central line removal in reducing neonatal post-catheter removal sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.pdf

BackgroundPost-catheter removal sepsis (PCRS) is a notable complication of indwelling central venous catheters (CVCs) in neonates, which is postulated to be secondary to the disruption of biofilms formed along catheter tips up on CVCs removal. It remains controversial whether this could be prevented by antibiotic use upon CVCs removal. We aimed to evaluate the protective effect of antibiotic administration at the time of CVCs removal.MethodsWe searched through PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane databases and reference lists of review articles for studies comparing the use of antibiotics versus no use within 12 h of CVCs removal. Risk of bias was assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk-of-bias tool accordingly. Results of quantitative analyses were presented as mean differences (MD) or odds ratio (OR). Subgroup and univariate meta-regression analyses were performed to identify heterogeneity.ResultsThe review included 470 CVCs in the antibiotic group and 658 in the control group. Antibiotic use within 12 h of CVCs removal did not significantly reduce the incidence of PCRS (OR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.08–1.53), but was associated with a lower incidence of post-catheter removal blood stream infection (OR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.11–0.86). Dosage of vancomycin and world region were major sources of heterogeneity.ConclusionAntibiotic administration upon CVCs removal does not significantly reduce the incidence of PCRS but offers less post-catheter removal blood stream infection. Whether this will be converted to better clinical outcomes lacks evidential support. Further randomized controlled studies with longer follow-up are needed.SummaryResults of our meta-analysis suggest that antibiotic use at planned central line removal removal does not significantly reduce the incidence of PCRS but offers less blood stream infection, which might contribute to future management of central lines in neonates. Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/, PROSPERO (CRD42022359677).</p