Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30973914›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Fragmented ambiguous objects: Stimuli with stable low-level features for object recognition tasks.

Cheryl A Olman, Tori Espensen-Sturges, Isaac Muscanto, Julia M Longenecker, Philip C Burton, Andrea N Grant, Scott R Sponheim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Seeing things in psychosis: Reduced theta power in early neural responses to ambiguous visual stimuli predicts perceptual distortions.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Aberrant Cortical Connectivity During Ambiguous Object Recognition Is Associated With Schizophrenia.Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging · 2021
    Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Cheryl A OlmanDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7324-6461
Tori Espensen-SturgesDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.
Isaac MuscantoDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.
Julia M LongeneckerDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.
Philip C BurtonCollege of Liberal Arts, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.
Andrea N GrantCenter for Magnetic Resonance Research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.
Scott R SponheimDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.

Funding

Visual TestingP30EY011374 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI NEWMAN, ERIC A · 1996 to 2019
$8.8M
Perceptual Mechanisms of Visual Hallucinations and Illusions in PsychosisR01MH112583 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI SPONHEIM, SCOTT R · 2017 to 2021
$2.4M
Quantitative Modeling of Visual Perception Endophenotypes in SchizophreniaI01CX000227 · VA · MINNEAPOLIS VA MEDICAL CENTER · PI SPONHEIM, SCOTT R · 2011 to 2018
–
CSRD VA I01 CX000227NEI NIH HHS P30 EY011374NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH112583
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual object recognition is a complex skill that relies on the interaction of many spatially distinct and specialized visual areas in the human brain. One tool that can help us better understand these specializations and interactions is a set of visual stimuli that do not differ along low-level dimensions (e.g., orientation, contrast) but do differ along high-level dimensions, such as whether a real-world object can be detected. The present work creates a set of line segment-based images that are matched for luminance, contrast, and orientation distribution (both for single elements and for pair-wise combinations) but result in a range of object and non-object percepts. Image generation started with images of isolated objects taken from publicly available databases and then progressed through 3-stages: a computer algorithm generating 718 candidate images, expert observers selecting 217 for further consideration, and naïve observers performing final ratings. This process identified a set of 100 images that all have the same low-level properties but cover a range of recognizability (proportion of naïve observers (N = 120) who indicated that the stimulus "contained a known object") and semantic stability (consistency across the categories of living, non-living/manipulable, and non-living/non-manipulable when the same observers named "known" objects). Stimuli are available at https://github.com/caolman/FAOT.git.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultBrainFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPattern Recognition, VisualPhotic StimulationRecognition, PsychologyVisual PerceptionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30973914
PMCPMC6459591

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.