Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30061459›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2018

Inflation versus filling-in: why we feel we see more than we actually do in peripheral vision.

Brian Odegaard, Min Yu Chang, Hakwan Lau, Sing-Hang Cheung

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. How Does Peripheral Vision Feel Rich? A Selective Review.Journal of eye movement research · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Metacognitive awareness in the sound-induced flash illusion.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Theories of consciousness.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2022
    Review
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Brian OdegaardDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA odegaard.brian@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-5459-1884
Min Yu ChangCollege of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.
Hakwan LauDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Sing-Hang CheungDepartment of Psychology, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong singhang@hku.hk.ORCID 0000-0001-5182-0752

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Do we perceive fine details in the visual periphery? Here, we propose that phenomenology in the visual periphery can be characterized by an

Indexed as

ConsciousnessMetacognitionVision, OcularVisual PerceptionAdultFemaleHong KongHumansJudgmentMalePhotic StimulationPsychophysicsYoung Adultcrowdinginflationperipheral visionsignal detection theorysummary statistics

Identifiers

PMID30061459
PMCPMC6074087

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.