ArticlePloS one2019
Illusory face detection in pure noise images: The role of interindividual variability in fMRI activation patterns.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Face pareidolia is enhanced by 40 Hz transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) of the face perception network.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- A behavioral advantage for the face pareidolia illusion in peripheral vision.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A novel model of divergent predictive perception.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2024Article
- Decreased frontotemporal connectivity in patients with parkinson's disease experiencing face pareidolia.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2021Article
- Anomalous visual experience is linked to perceptual uncertainty and visual imagery vividness.Psychological research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Illusory face detection tasks can be used to study the neural correlates of top-down influences on face perception. In a typical functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study design, subjects are presented with pure noise images, but are told that half of the stimuli contain a face. The illusory face perception network is assessed by comparing blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) responses to images in which a face has been detected against BOLD activity related to images in which no face has been detected. In the present study, we highlight the existence of strong interindividual differences of BOLD activation patterns associated with illusory face perception. In the core system of face perception, 4 of 9 subjects had highly significant (p<0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons) activity in the bilateral occipital face area (OFA) and fusiform face area (FFA). In contrast, 5 of 9 subjects did not show any activity in these regions, even at statistical thresholds as liberal as p = 0.05, uncorrected. At the group level, this variability is reflected by non-significant activity in all regions of the core system. We argue that these differences might be related to individual differences in task execution: only some participants really detected faces in the noise images, while the other subjects simply responded in the desired way. This has several implications for future studies on illusory face detection. First, future studies should not only analyze results at the group level, but also for single subjects. Second, subjects should be explicitly queried after the fMRI experiment about whether they really detected faces or not. Third, if possible, not only the overt response of the subject, but also additional parameters that might indicate the perception of a noise stimulus as face should be collected (e.g., behavioral classification images).
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.