ArticleCurrent biology : CB2019
Humans Trust Central Vision More Than Peripheral Vision Even in the Dark.
Article in Current biology : CB, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Blinks are strategically coupled with head movements in unconstrained natural gaze behavior.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Filling-in of the foveal rod scotoma and confidence preference for central vision under mesopic viewing conditions.Vision research · 2026Article
- CASK hypomorph mice display cone photoreceptor dysfunction.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Low confidence for perceptual completion of partially occluded objects.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Eye movements do not preferentially test inferences in the blind spot.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The similarity with a face presented in central vision improves face recognition in peripheral vision.Perception · 2025Article
- Peripheral overconfidence in a scene categorization task.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Confidence in incomplete visual search.Visual cognition · 2025Article
- Increased brightness assimilation in rod vision.iScience · 2025Article
- Confidence in auditory perceptual completion.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2025Article
- Transsaccadic perception of changes in object regularity.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- Central and Peripheral Attention in Virtual Reality: Test of Visual Efficiency for Concussion Detection.Journal of medical extended reality · 2024Article
- Perceptual Phenomena Cannot Be Approached from a Single Perspective.Journal of Intelligence · 2023Article
- Underestimation of the number of hidden objects.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- Evaluation of visual performance and eye movements in patients with blue light-filtering intraocular lenses versus ultraviolet light-filtering intraocular lenses.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Variance misperception under skewed empirical noise statistics explains overconfidence in the visual periphery.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2022Article
- Vision as oculomotor reward: cognitive contributions to the dynamic control of saccadic eye movements.Cognitive neurodynamics · 2021Review
- Underconfidence in peripheral vision.Journal of vision · 2021Article
- A review of interactions between peripheral and foveal vision.Journal of vision · 2020Review
- Non-photopic and photopic visual cycles differentially regulate immediate, early, and late phases of cone photoreceptor-mediated vision.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Two types of photoreceptors in the human retina support vision across a wide range of luminances: cones are active under bright daylight illumination (photopic viewing) and rods under dim illumination at night (scotopic viewing). These photoreceptors are distributed inhomogeneously across the retina [1]: cone-receptor density peaks at the center of the visual field (i.e., the fovea) and declines toward the periphery, allowing for high-acuity vision at the fovea in daylight. Rod receptors are absent from the fovea, leading to a functional foveal scotoma in night vision. In order to make optimal perceptual decisions, the visual system requires knowledge about its own properties and the relative reliability of signals arriving from different parts of the visual field [2]. Since cone and rod signals converge on the same pathways [3], and their cortical processing is similar except for the foveal scotoma [4], it is unclear if humans can take into account the differences between scotopic and photopic vision when making perceptual decisions. Here, we show that the scotopic foveal scotoma is filled in with information from the immediate surround and that humans trust this inferred information more than veridical information from the periphery of the visual field. We observed a similar preference under daylight illumination, indicating that humans have a default preference for information from the fovea even if this information is not veridical, like in night vision. This suggests that filling-in precedes the estimation of confidence, thereby shielding awareness from the foveal scotoma with respect to its contents and its properties.
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.