ArticleNeuroImage2020
Neural responses to apparent motion can be predicted by responses to non-moving stimuli.
Article in NeuroImage, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
When two objects are presented in alternation at two locations, they are seen as a single object moving from one location to the other. This apparent motion (AM) percept is experienced for objects located at short and also at long distances. However, current models cannot explain how the brain integrates information over large distances to create such long-range AM. This study investigates the neural markers of AM by parcelling out the contribution of spatial and temporal interactions not specific to motion. In two experiments, participants' EEG was recorded while they viewed two stimuli inducing AM. Different combinations of these stimuli were also shown in a static context to predict an AM neural response where no motion is perceived. We compared the goodness of fit between these different predictions and found consistent results in both experiments. At short-range, the addition of the inhibitory spatial and temporal interactions not specific to motion improved the AM prediction. However, there was no indication that spatial or temporal non-linear interactions were present at long-range. This suggests that short- and long-range AM rely on different neural mechanisms. Importantly, our results also show that at both short- and long-range, responses generated by a moving stimulus could be well predicted from conditions in which no motion is perceived. That is, the EEG response to a moving stimulus is simply a combination of individual responses to non-moving stimuli. This demonstrates a dissociation between the brain response and the subjective percept of motion.
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.