Empty visual field studies: Some effects of corrective lenses, filters, and structure.

1964 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milton S. Katz ◽  
Paul A. Cirincione ◽  
William Metlay
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Field Studies

Choice of test Objects in Visual Field Studies*

1952 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 381-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
Max Chamlin ◽  
Leo M. Davidoff
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Test Objects

Use of Quinclorac Plus 2,4-D for Controlling Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) in Fallow

1999 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 731-736 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen F. Enloe ◽  
Philip Westra ◽  
Scott J. Nissen ◽  
Stephen D. Miller ◽  
Phillip W. Stahlman
Keyword(s):  
Triticum Aestivum ◽  
Visual Field ◽  
Count Data ◽  
Late Summer ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Strong Correlations ◽  
Convolvulus Arvensis ◽  
Fallow Period ◽  
Field Bindweed ◽  
Better Than

Field studies were conducted in Colorado, Kansas, and Wyoming to compare the use of quinclorac plus 2,4-D with picloram plus 2,4-D, dicamba plus 2,4-D, a glyphosate plus 2,4-D premix, and 2,4-D alone for control of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) in a winter wheat (Triticum aestivum)-fallow rotation. Treatments were applied in late summer or fall each year for two, three, or four consecutive years at the beginning and end of each fallow period. Evaluations were taken 10 to 12 mo after treatment each year. Quinclorac plus 2,4-D and picloram plus 2,4-D consistently performed as well as or better than 2,4-D, dicamba plus 2,4-D, and glyphosate plus 2,4-D. Wheat yields increased when field bindweed was controlled during the fallow period. Strong correlations (r> −0.85) were obtained among visual field bindweed evaluation, biomass, and stand count data.

Visual Field Studies After Temporal Lobectomy for Epilepsy

1960 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. P. WENDLAND ◽  
S. NERENBERG
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Temporal Lobectomy

Visual Field Studies

1927 ◽  
Vol 20 (10) ◽  
pp. 818
Author(s):  
Ralph I. Lloyd
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Field Studies

Lateralized Processing of Faces

2014 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. 215-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dario Bombari ◽  
Nora Preuss ◽  
Fred W. Mast
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Configural Processing ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Divided Visual Field ◽  
Configural Information ◽  
Test Face ◽  
The Right ◽  
Featural Processing

We investigated the lateralized processing of featural and configural information in face recognition in two divided visual field studies. In Experiment 1, participants matched the identity of a cue face containing either featural (scrambled faces) or configural (blurred faces) information with an intact test face presented subsequently either in the right visual field (RVF) or in the left visual field (LVF). Unilateral presentation was controlled by monitoring eye movements. The results show an advantage of the left hemisphere (LH) over the right hemisphere (RH) for featural processing and a specialization of the RH for configural compared to featural processing. In Experiment 2, we focused on configural processing and its relationship to familiarity. Either learned or novel test faces were presented in the LVF or the RVF. Participants recognized learned faces better when presented in the LVF than in the RVF, suggesting that the RH has an advantage in the recognition of learned faces. Because the recognition of familiar faces relies strongly on configural information ( Buttle & Raymond, 2003 ), we argue that the advantage of the RH over the LH in configural processing is a function of familiarity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document