ArticlePloS one2019
Visual mismatch negativity to disappearing parts of objects and textures.
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 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- N170 Amplitude to Rare Neutral Faces in an Oddball Condition Reflects Prediction Error.The European journal of neuroscience · 2025Article
- The effect of hand motion and object orientation on the automatic detection of orientation: A visual mismatch negativity study.PloS one · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Visual mismatch negativity (vMMN), an event-related signature of automatic detection of events violating sequential regularities is traditionally investigated at the onset of frequent (standard) and rare (deviant) events. In a previous study we obtained vMMN to vanishing parts of continuously presented objects (diamonds with diagonals), and we concluded that the offset-related vMMN is a model of sensitivity to irregular partial occlusion of objects. In the present study we replicated the previous results, but in order to test the object-related interpretation we applied a new condition with a set of separate visual stimuli: a texture of bars with two orientations. In the texture condition (offset of bars with irregular vs. regular orientation) we obtained vMMN, showing that the continuous presence of objects is unnecessary for offset-related vMMN. However, unlike in the object-related condition, reappearance of the previously vanishing lines also elicited vMMN. In principle reappearance of the stimuli is an event with probability 1.0, and according to our results, the object condition reappearance was an expected event. However, the offset and onset of texture elements seems to be treated separately by the system underlying vMMN. As an advantage of the present method, the whole stimulus set during the inter-stimulus interval saturates the visual structures sensitive to stimulus input. Accordingly, the offset-related vMMN is less sensitive to low-level adaptation that differs between the deviant and standard stimuli.
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.