Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30619623›Full record

ArticleNeuroscience of consciousness2015

Serial correlations in Continuous Flash Suppression.

Pieter Moors, Timo Stein, Johan Wagemans, Raymond van Ee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroscience of consciousness, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Serial dependence in the perceptual judgments of radiologists.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2021
    Article
  2. 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.

Pieter MoorsLaboratory of Experimental Psychology, Department of Brain & Cognition, University of Leuven (KU Leuven), Belgium.
Timo SteinCenter for Mind/Brain Sciences (CIMeC), University of Trento, Rovereto, Italy.
Johan WagemansLaboratory of Experimental Psychology, Department of Brain & Cognition, University of Leuven (KU Leuven), Belgium.
Raymond van EeLaboratory of Experimental Psychology, Department of Brain & Cognition, University of Leuven (KU Leuven), Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research on visual rivalry has demonstrated that consecutive dominance durations are serially dependent, implying that the underlying competition mechanism is not driven by some random process but includes a memory component. Here we asked whether serial dependence is also observed in continuous flash suppression (CFS). We addressed this question by analyzing a large dataset of time series of suppression durations obtained in a series of so-called "breaking CFS" experiments in which the duration of the period is measured until a suppressed target breaks through the CFS mask. Across experimental manipulations, stimuli, and observers, we found that (i) the distribution of breakthrough rates was fit less well by a gamma distribution than in conventional visual rivalry paradigms, (ii) the suppression duration on a previous trial influenced the suppression duration on a later trial up to as long as a lag of eight trials, and (iii) the mechanism underlying these serial correlations was predominantly monocular. We conclude that the underlying competition mechanism of CFS also includes a memory component that is primarily, but not necessarily exclusively, monocular in nature. We suggest that the temporal dependency structure of suppression durations in CFS is akin to those observed in binocular rivalry, which might imply that both phenomena tap into similar rather than distinct mechanisms.

Indexed as

awarenessperceptionpsychophysics

Identifiers

PMID30619623
PMCPMC6307532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.