ArticleJournal of vision2016
Perceptual suppression of predicted natural images.
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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Double dissociation of the effects of volitional control on perceptual selection and maintenance in multistable visual perception.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Memory color influences conscious object perception.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2026Article
- Enhanced perceptual selection of predicted stimulus orientations following statistical learning.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- Extraction and generalisation of category-level information during visual statistical learning in autistic people.PloS one · 2023Article
- Predictive context biases binocular rivalry in children and adults with no positive relation to two measures of social cognition.Scientific reports · 2020Observational
- The implicit learning of metrical and non-metrical rhythms in blind and sighted adults.Psychological research · 2019Article
- Associative Prediction of Visual Shape in the Hippocampus.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2018Article
- Recent cross-modal statistical learning influences visual perceptual selection.Journal of vision · 2018Article
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
Perception is shaped not only by current sensory inputs but also by expectations generated from past sensory experience. Humans viewing ambiguous stimuli in a stable visual environment are generally more likely to see the perceptual interpretation that matches their expectations, but it is less clear how expectations affect perception when the environment is changing predictably. We used statistical learning to teach observers arbitrary sequences of natural images and employed binocular rivalry to measure perceptual selection as a function of predictive context. In contrast to previous demonstrations of preferential selection of predicted images for conscious awareness, we found that recently acquired sequence predictions biased perceptual selection toward unexpected natural images and image categories. These perceptual biases were not associated with explicit recall of the learned image sequences. Our results show that exposure to arbitrary sequential structure in the environment impacts subsequent visual perceptual selection and awareness. Specifically, for natural image sequences, the visual system prioritizes what is surprising, or statistically informative, over what is expected, or statistically likely.
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.