Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27291050›Full record

ArticleCurrent biology : CB2016

Temporal Integration Windows in Neural Processing and Perception Aligned to Saccadic Eye Movements.

Andreas Wutz, Evelyn Muschter, Martijn G van Koningsbruggen, Nathan Weisz, David Melcher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current biology : CB, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

75 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Post-saccadic disruption of semantic category information in naturalistic scenes.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Andreas WutzCenter for Mind/Brain Sciences (CIMeC), University of Trento, Rovereto (TN) 38068, Italy; Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
Evelyn MuschterCenter for Mind/Brain Sciences (CIMeC), University of Trento, Rovereto (TN) 38068, Italy.
Martijn G van KoningsbruggenCenter for Mind/Brain Sciences (CIMeC), University of Trento, Rovereto (TN) 38068, Italy; Italian Institute of Technology (IIT), University of Trento, Rovereto (TN) 38068, Italy.
Nathan WeiszCenter for Mind/Brain Sciences (CIMeC), University of Trento, Rovereto (TN) 38068, Italy; Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Salzburg, Salzburg 5020, Austria.
David MelcherCenter for Mind/Brain Sciences (CIMeC), University of Trento, Rovereto (TN) 38068, Italy. Electronic address: david.melcher@unitn.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When processing dynamic input, the brain balances the opposing needs of temporal integration and sensitivity to change. We hypothesized that the visual system might resolve this challenge by aligning integration windows to the onset of newly arriving sensory samples. In a series of experiments, human participants observed the same sequence of two displays separated by a brief blank delay when performing either an integration or segregation task. First, using magneto-encephalography (MEG), we found a shift in the stimulus-evoked time courses by a 150-ms time window between task signals. After stimulus onset, multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA) decoding of task in occipital-parietal sources remained above chance for almost 1 s, and the task-decoding pattern interacted with task outcome. In the pre-stimulus period, the oscillatory phase in the theta frequency band was informative about both task processing and behavioral outcome for each task separately, suggesting that the post-stimulus effects were caused by a theta-band phase shift. Second, when aligning stimulus presentation to the onset of eye fixations, there was a similar phase shift in behavioral performance according to task demands. In both MEG and behavioral measures, task processing was optimal first for segregation and then integration, with opposite phase in the theta frequency range (3-5 Hz). The best fit to neurophysiological and behavioral data was given by a dampened 3-Hz oscillation from stimulus or eye fixation onset. The alignment of temporal integration windows to input changes found here may serve to actively organize the temporal processing of continuous sensory input.

Indexed as

Reaction TimeSaccadesTime PerceptionVisual PerceptionAdultFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID27291050
PMCPMC4942674

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.