ArticleVision research2018
Illusory edges comingle with real edges in the neural representation of objects.
Article in Vision research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Perception of illusory contours in children and adults: An eye-tracking study.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The visual system must transform a point-by-point biological representation from the photoreceptors into neural representations of separate objects. Even a uniform circular patch of light that slowly modulates in luminance can be segmented into separate central and surrounding areas merely by introducing black lines to outline a central square. The black lines cause brightness induction in the center even though the light inside and outside the square is always identical, as predicted by spatial antagonism between the square central area and its surround. Importantly, illusory Kanizsa lines forming the square are as effective for this brightness induction as real black lines, suggesting a 'form-cue invariant' cortical neural representation that does not distinguish between a central region set off by real or illusory edges. An open question is whether separate subsystems generate objects defined by real versus illusory edges, each providing the same form-cue invariant neural representation of an object, or whether form-cue invariance extends to integrating component pieces that together define an object. Experiments here show object segmentation when subparts of a square are defined by a mixture of real and illusory edges. Subjects adjusted the Michelson contrast of a separate patch to match the perceived modulation depth within the central region of a circular field that slowly oscillated in luminance. A closed, four-sided figure, no matter how constructed, reduced the perceived modulation depth within the central region. This shows that both real and illusory subparts can be integrated to segment center from surround. It supports a strong version of form-cue invariance in which neural mechanisms responsible for object segmentation are impartial to the piecemeal cues that are integrated to define an object.
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.