ArticleExperimental brain research2014
The background is remapped across saccades.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting what and when across saccades: Evidence from the extrafoveal preview effect.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- An early effect of the parafoveal preview on post-saccadic processing of English words.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Visual Remapping.Annual review of vision science · 2021Review
- Spatiotopic updating across saccades in the absence of awareness.Journal of vision · 2021Article
- Low-Level Visual Information Is Maintained across Saccades, Allowing for a Postsaccadic Handoff between Visual Areas.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2020Article
- Visual attention and stability.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2011Review
- Position specificity of adaptation-related face aftereffects.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Physiological studies have found that neurons prepare for impending eye movements, showing anticipatory responses to stimuli presented at the location of the post-saccadic receptive fields (RFs) (Wurtz in Vis Res 48:2070-2089, 2008). These studies proposed that visual neurons with shifting RFs prepared for the stimuli they would process after an impending saccade. Additionally, psychophysical studies have shown behavioral consequences of those anticipatory responses, including the transfer of aftereffects (Melcher in Nat Neurosci 10:903-907, 2007) and the remapping of attention (Rolfs et al. in Nat Neurosci 14:252-258, 2011). As the physiological studies proposed, the shifting RF mechanism explains the transfer of aftereffects. Recently, a new mechanism based on activation transfer via a saliency map was proposed, which accounted for the remapping of attention (Cavanagh et al. in Trends Cogn Sci 14:147-153, 2010). We hypothesized that there would be different aspects of the remapping corresponding to these different neural mechanisms. This study found that the information in the background was remapped to a similar extent as the figure, provided that the visual context remained stable. We manipulated the status of the figure and the ground in the saliency map and showed that the manipulation modulated the remapping of the figure and the ground in different ways. These results suggest that the visual system has an ability to remap the background as well as the figure, but lacks the ability to modulate the remapping of the background based on the visual context, and that different neural mechanisms might work together to maintain visual stability across saccades.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24276312What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.