ArticleScientific reports2017
Separate requirements for detection and perceptual stability of motion in interocular suppression.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Chameleon Paradigm: An effective method for masking biological motion stimuli.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- The impact of awareness on affective emoji priming in visual word recognition.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Local motion governs visibility and suppression of biological motion in continuous flash suppression.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- CFS-crafter: An open-source tool for creating and analyzing images for continuous flash suppression experiments.Behavior research methods · 2023Article
- Continuous flash suppression: Known and unknowns.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2020Review
- Battle of the Mondrians: Investigating the Role of Unpredictability in Continuous Flash Suppression.i-PerceptionArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In interocular masking, a stimulus presented to one eye (the mask) is made stronger in order to suppress from awareness the target stimulus presented to the other eye. We investigated whether matching the features of the target and the mask would lead to more effective suppression (feature-selective suppression), or not (i.e., non-selective suppression). To control the temporal characteristics of the stimuli, we used a dynamic interocular mask to suppress a moving target, and found that neither matching speed nor pattern of motion led to more effective suppression. Instead, a faster target was detected faster, regardless of the mask type or speed, while a relatively slow (about 1°/s) mask was more perceptually stable (i.e., maintained suppression longer) in a non-selective fashion. While the requirement for target detectability, i.e., salience, is well characterized, relatively little attention is given to the factors that make a mask percept more perceptually stable. Based on these results, we argue that there are separate requirements for detection and perceptual stability.
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.