ArticleScientific reports2019
Common spatiotemporal processing of visual features shapes object representation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Modulatory feedback determines attentional object segmentation in a model of the ventral stream.PloS one · 2025Article
- An fMRI study of visual geometric shapes processing.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Skeletal representations of shape in the human visual cortex.Neuropsychologia · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biological vision relies on representations of the physical world at different levels of complexity. Relevant features span from simple low-level properties, as contrast and spatial frequencies, to object-based attributes, as shape and category. However, how these features are integrated into coherent percepts is still debated. Moreover, these dimensions often share common biases: for instance, stimuli from the same category (e.g., tools) may have similar shapes. Here, using magnetoencephalography, we revealed the temporal dynamics of feature processing in human subjects attending to objects from six semantic categories. By employing Relative Weights Analysis, we mitigated collinearity between model-based descriptions of stimuli and showed that low-level properties (contrast and spatial frequencies), shape (medial-axis) and category are represented within the same spatial locations early in time: 100-150 ms after stimulus onset. This fast and overlapping processing may result from independent parallel computations, with categorical representation emerging later than the onset of low-level feature processing, yet before shape coding. Categorical information is represented both before and after shape, suggesting a role for this feature in the refinement of categorical matching.
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.