Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26732235›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in systems neuroscience2015

Breaking Object Correspondence Across Saccadic Eye Movements Deteriorates Object Recognition.

Christian H Poth, Arvid Herwig, Werner X Schneider

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Spatiotemporal Evidence Accumulation Through Saccadic Sampling for Object Recognition.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Warning signals only support the first action in a sequence.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The role of object history in establishing object correspondence.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. The Binding Problem after an eye movement.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Christian H PothNeuro-Cognitive Psychology, Department of Psychology, Bielefeld UniversityBielefeld, Germany; Cluster of Excellence Cognitive Interaction Technology, Bielefeld UniversityBielefeld, Germany.
Arvid HerwigNeuro-Cognitive Psychology, Department of Psychology, Bielefeld UniversityBielefeld, Germany; Cluster of Excellence Cognitive Interaction Technology, Bielefeld UniversityBielefeld, Germany.
Werner X SchneiderNeuro-Cognitive Psychology, Department of Psychology, Bielefeld UniversityBielefeld, Germany; Cluster of Excellence Cognitive Interaction Technology, Bielefeld UniversityBielefeld, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual perception is based on information processing during periods of eye fixations that are interrupted by fast saccadic eye movements. The ability to sample and relate information on task-relevant objects across fixations implies that correspondence between presaccadic and postsaccadic objects is established. Postsaccadic object information usually updates and overwrites information on the corresponding presaccadic object. The presaccadic object representation is then lost. In contrast, the presaccadic object is conserved when object correspondence is broken. This helps transsaccadic memory but it may impose attentional costs on object recognition. Therefore, we investigated how breaking object correspondence across the saccade affects postsaccadic object recognition. In Experiment 1, object correspondence was broken by a brief postsaccadic blank screen. Observers made a saccade to a peripheral object which was displaced during the saccade. This object reappeared either immediately after the saccade or after the blank screen. Within the postsaccadic object, a letter was briefly presented (terminated by a mask). Observers reported displacement direction and letter identity in different blocks. Breaking object correspondence by blanking improved displacement identification but deteriorated postsaccadic letter recognition. In Experiment 2, object correspondence was broken by changing the object's contrast-polarity. There were no object displacements and observers only reported letter identity. Again, breaking object correspondence deteriorated postsaccadic letter recognition. These findings identify transsaccadic object correspondence as a key determinant of object recognition across the saccade. This is in line with the recent hypothesis that breaking object correspondence results in separate representations of presaccadic and postsaccadic objects which then compete for limited attentional processing resources (Schneider, 2013). Postsaccadic object recognition is then deteriorated because less resources are available for processing postsaccadic objects.

Indexed as

attentionobject correspondencesaccadetranssaccadic memoryvisual stability

Identifiers

PMID26732235
PMCPMC4685059

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.