Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29033808›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2017

Size Aftereffects Are Eliminated When Adaptor Stimuli Are Prevented from Reaching Awareness by Continuous Flash Suppression.

Robin Laycock, Joshua A Sherman, Irene Sperandio, Philippe A Chouinard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The contribution of stereopsis in Emmert's law.Experimental brain research · 2020
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Robin LaycockSchool of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Joshua A ShermanSchool of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Irene SperandioSchool of Psychology, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.
Philippe A ChouinardSchool of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Size aftereffects are a compelling perceptual phenomenon in which we perceive the size of a stimulus as being different than it actually is following a period of visual stimulation of an adapter stimulus with a different size. Here, we used continuous flash suppression (CFS) to determine if size aftereffects require a high-level appraisal of the adapter stimulus. The strength of size aftereffects was quantified following a 3-s exposure to perceptually visible and invisible adapters. Participants judged the size of a target that followed the adapter in comparison to a subsequent reference. Our experiments demonstrate that the adapter no longer influenced the perceived size of the subsequent target stimulus under CFS. We conclude that the perception of size aftereffects is prevented when CFS is used to suppress the conscious awarness of the adapting stimulus.

Indexed as

adaptationconscious awarenesscontinuous flash suppression (CFS)perceptionsize aftereffects

Identifiers

PMID29033808
PMCPMC5626861

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.