Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31258501›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2019

Repetition Suppression for Noisy and Intact Faces in the Occipito-Temporal Cortex.

Sophie-Marie Rostalski, Catarina Amado, Gyula Kovács

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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 · 2020
    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

3 authors.

Sophie-Marie RostalskiDepartment of Biological Psychology and Cognitive Neurosciences, Institute of Psychology, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany.
Catarina AmadoDepartment of Computer Science, Experimental Cognitive Science Research Group, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Gyula KovácsDepartment of Biological Psychology and Cognitive Neurosciences, Institute of Psychology, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

fusiform face areanoiseprecisionpredictive codingrepetition suppression

Identifiers

PMID31258501
PMCPMC6587110

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.