Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27160838›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2016

Training of binocular rivalry suppression suggests stimulus-specific plasticity in monocular and binocular visual areas.

Mark Vergeer, Johan Wagemans, Raymond van Ee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Attention to Monocular Images Bias Binocular Rivalry.Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 2019
    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.

Mark VergeerLaboratory of Experimental Psychology, Brain &Cognition, KU Leuven, Belgium.
Johan WagemansLaboratory of Experimental Psychology, Brain &Cognition, KU Leuven, Belgium.
Raymond van EeLaboratory of Experimental Psychology, Brain &Cognition, KU Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The plasticity of the human brain, as shown in perceptual learning, is generally reflected by improved task performance after training. Here, we show that perceptual suppression can be increased through training. In the first experiment, binocular rivalry suppression of a specific orientation was trained, leading to a relative reduction in sensitivity to the trained orientation. In a second experiment, two orthogonal orientations were suppressed in alternating training blocks, in the left and right eye, respectively. This double-training procedure lead to reduced sensitivity for the orientation that was suppression-trained in each specific eye, implying that training of feature suppression is specific for the eye in which the oriented grating was presented during training. Results of a control experiment indicate that the obtained effects are indeed due to suppression during training, instead of being merely due to the repetitive presentation of the oriented gratings. Visual plasticity is essential for a person's visual development. The finding that plasticity can result in increased perceptual suppression reported here may prove to be significant in understanding human visual development. It emphasizes that for stable vision, not only the enhancement of relevant signals is crucial, but also the reliable and stable suppression of (task) irrelevant signals.

Indexed as

Photic StimulationContrast SensitivityFemaleHumansSensory ThresholdsVision, BinocularVision, MonocularVisual Perception

Identifiers

PMID27160838
PMCPMC4861957

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.