ArticlePsychological research2020
Object discrepancy modulates feature prediction across eye movements.
Article in Psychological research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Familiar objects benefit more from transsaccadic feature predictions.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2023Article
- What determines location specificity or generalization of transsaccadic learning?Journal of vision · 2023Article
- The influence of action on perception spans different effectors.Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 2023Review
- Mislocalization after inhibition of saccadic adaptation.Journal of vision · 2022Article
- A bias in saccadic suppression of shape change.Vision research · 2021Article
- Prediction of complex stimuli across saccades.Journal of vision · 2021Article
- A review of interactions between peripheral and foveal vision.Journal of vision · 2020Review
- Trans-saccadic adaptation of perceived size independent of saccadic adaptation.Journal of vision · 2020Article
- A comparison of the temporal and spatial properties of trans-saccadic perceptual recalibration and saccadic adaptation.Journal of vision · 2020Article
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
Object perception across saccadic eye movements is assumed to result from integrating two information sources: incoming peripheral object information and information from a foveal prediction (Herwig and Schneider, J Exp Psychol Gen 143(5):1903-1922, 2014, Herwig, J Vis 15(16), 7, 2015). Predictions are supposed to be based on transsaccadic associations of peripheral and foveal object information. The main function of these predictions may be to conceal discrepancies in resolution and locations across saccades. Here we ask how predictions are affected by discrepancies between peripheral and foveal objects. Participants learned unfamiliar transsaccadic associations by making saccades to objects whose shape systematically changed during the saccade. Importantly, we manipulated the size of this change between participants to induce different magnitudes of object discrepancy. In a subsequent test, we found that judgment shifts of peripheral shape perception toward the predicted foveal input depended on change size during acquisition. Specifically, the contribution of prediction decreased for large changes but did not reach zero, showing that even for large changes (i.e., square to circle or vice versa) the prediction was not ignored completely. These findings indicate that object discrepancy during learning determines how much the resulting foveal prediction contributes to perception in the periphery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29387939What 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.