ArticleFrontiers in psychology2019
Repetition Suppression for Noisy and Intact Faces in the Occipito-Temporal Cortex.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visual Mismatch Negativity Reflects Enhanced Response to the Deviant: Evidence From Event-Related Potentials and Electroencephalogram Time-Frequency Analysis.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
- The extrafoveal preview paradigm as a measure of predictive, active sampling in visual perception.Journal of vision · 2021Review
- Post-Saccadic Face Processing Is Modulated by Pre-Saccadic Preview: Evidence from Fixation-Related Potentials.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Repetition suppression (RS), the relative lower neural response magnitude to repeated as compared to non-repeated stimuli, is often explained within the predictive coding framework. According to this theory, precise predictions (priors) together with less precise sensory evidences lead to decisions that are determined largely by the predictions and the other way around. In other words, the prediction error, namely the magnitude of RS, should depend on the precision of predictions and sensory inputs. In the current study, we aimed at testing this idea by manipulating the clarity and thereby the precision of the incoming sensory data by adding noise to the images. This resulted in an fMRI adaptation design with repeated or alternating trials showing clear or noisy face stimuli. Our results show a noise effect on the activity in the fusiform face area (FFA), namely less activation for noisy than for clear trials, which supports previous findings. No such effects could be found in OFA or LO. Data also showed reliable RS in the FFA (bilateral) and unilaterally in OFA (right) and LO (left). Interestingly, the noise added to the stimuli did not affect the magnitude of RS in any of the tested cortical areas. This suggests that the clarity of the sensory input is not crucial in determining the magnitude of RS.
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.