ArticleVision research2014
Visual motion modulates pattern sensitivity ahead, behind, and beside motion.
Article in Vision research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Retinal motion can modulate visual sensitivity. For instance, low contrast drifting waveforms (targets) can be easier to detect when abutting the leading edges of movement in adjacent high contrast waveforms (inducers), rather than the trailing edges. This target-inducer interaction is contingent on the adjacent waveforms being consistent with one another - in-phase as opposed to out-of-phase. It has been suggested that this happens because there is a perceptually explicit predictive signal at leading edges of motion that summates with low contrast physical input - a 'predictive summation'. Another possible explanation is a phase sensitive 'spatial summation', a summation of physical inputs spread across the retina (not predictive signals). This should be non-selective in terms of position - it should be evident at leading, adjacent, and at trailing edges of motion. To tease these possibilities apart, we examined target sensitivity at leading, adjacent, and trailing edges of motion. We also examined target sensitivity adjacent to flicker, and for a stimulus that is less susceptible to spatial summation, as it sums to grey across a small retinal expanse. We found evidence for spatial summation in all but the last condition. Finally, we examined sensitivity to an absence of signal at leading and trailing edges of motion, finding greater sensitivity at leading edges. These results are inconsistent with the existence of a perceptually explicit predictive signal in advance of drifting waveforms. Instead, we suggest that phase-contingent target-inducer modulations of sensitivity are explicable in terms of a directionally modulated spatial summation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.