ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2018
A Model for a Filling-in Process Triggered by Edges Predicts "Conflicting" Afterimage Effects.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Computational modeling of spatiotemporal afterimage visual perception with spiking neural networks.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Computational modeling of color perception with biologically plausible spiking neural networks.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- A Compound Computational Model for Filling-In Processes Triggered by Edges: Watercolor Illusions.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2019Article
- Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The goal of our research was to develop a compound computational model that predicts the "opposite" effects of the alternating aftereffects stimuli, such as the "color dove illusion" (Barkan and Spitzer, 2017), and the "filling in the afterimage after the image" (van Lier et al., 2009). The model is based on a filling-in mechanism, through a diffusion equation where the color and intensity of the perceived surface are obtained through a diffusion process of color from the stimulus edges. The model solves the diffusion equation with boundary conditions that takes the locations of the chromatic edges of the chromatic inducer (chromatic stimulus) and the achromatic remaining contours into account. These contours (edges) trigger the diffusion process. The same calculations are done for both types of afterimage effects, with the only difference related to the location of the remaining contour. While a gradient toward the inducing color produces a perception of the complementary color, an opposite gradient yields the perception of the same color as that of the chromatic inducer. Furthermore, we show that the same computational model can also predict new alternating aftereffects stimuli, such as the spiral stimulus, and the averaging of colors in alternating afterimage stimuli described by Anstis et al. (2012). The suggested model is able to predict most of the additional properties related to the "conflicting" phenomena that have been recently described in the literature, and thus supports the idea that a shared visual mechanism is responsible for both the positive and the negative effects.
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.