ArticleJournal of vision2016
The effects of orientation and attention during surround suppression of small image features: A 7 Tesla fMRI study.
Article in Journal of vision, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distinct mechanisms of contextual modulation for dynamic natural scenes in motion- and scene-selective cortex.Journal of neurophysiology · 2026Article
- Characterizing surround suppression with dynamic natural scenes.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Impaired Contour Object Perception in Psychosis.Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging · 2026Article
- Impact of Rod-Dominant Mesopic Conditions on Spatial Summation and Surround Suppression in Early Visual Cortex.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- hMT+ activity predicts the effect of spatial attention on surround suppression.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- How does orientation-tuned normalization spread across the visual field?Journal of neurophysiology · 2025Article
- Impaired contour object perception in psychosis.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- The psychosis human connectome project: Design and rationale for studies of visual neurophysiology.NeuroImage · 2023Article
- Weakened untuned gain control is associated with schizophrenia while atypical orientation-tuned suppression depends on visual acuity.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- What multiplexing means for the interpretation of functional MRI data.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
- Weaker neural suppression in autism.Nature communications · 2020Article
- The time course of different surround suppression mechanisms.Journal of vision · 2019Article
- Article
- Characterizing the effects of feature salience and top-down attention in the early visual system.Journal of neurophysiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although V1 responses are driven primarily by elements within a neuron's receptive field, which subtends about 1° visual angle in parafoveal regions, previous work has shown that localized fMRI responses to visual elements reflect not only local feature encoding but also long-range pattern attributes. However, separating the response to an image feature from the response to the surrounding stimulus and studying the interactions between these two responses demands both spatial precision and signal independence, which may be challenging to attain with fMRI. The present study used 7 Tesla fMRI with 1.2-mm resolution to measure the interactions between small sinusoidal grating patches (targets) at 3° eccentricity and surrounds of various sizes and orientations to test the conditions under which localized, context-dependent fMRI responses could be predicted from either psychophysical or electrophysiological data. Targets were presented at 8%, 16%, and 32% contrast while manipulating (a) spatial extent of parallel (strongly suppressive) or orthogonal (weakly suppressive) surrounds, (b) locus of attention, (c) stimulus onset asynchrony between target and surround, and (d) blocked versus event-related design. In all experiments, the V1 fMRI signal was lower when target stimuli were flanked by parallel versus orthogonal context. Attention amplified fMRI responses to all stimuli but did not show a selective effect on central target responses or a measurable effect on orientation-dependent surround suppression. Suppression of the V1 fMRI response by parallel surrounds was stronger than predicted from psychophysics but showed a better match to previous electrophysiological reports.
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.