Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32724119›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Learning to see the Ebbinghaus illusion in the periphery reveals a top-down stabilization of size perception across the visual field.

Cécile Eymond, Tal Seidel Malkinson, Lionel Naccache

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cécile Eymond *INSERM U 1127, CNRS UMR 7225, Sorbonne Université, 75013, Paris, France. cecile.eymond@gmail.com.
Tal Seidel Malkinson *INSERM U 1127, CNRS UMR 7225, Sorbonne Université, 75013, Paris, France.
Lionel NaccacheINSERM U 1127, CNRS UMR 7225, Sorbonne Université, 75013, Paris, France. lionel.naccache@gmail.com.
Institut du Cerveau · FRInserm · FR

Funding

Marie Curie 702577Marie Curie ANR-16-CE37-0005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our conscious visual perception relies on predictive signals, notably in the periphery where sensory uncertainty is high. We investigated how such signals could support perceptual stability of objects' size across the visual field. When attended carefully, the same object appears slightly smaller in the periphery compared to the fovea. Could this perceptual difference be encoded as a strong prior to predict the peripheral perceived size relative to the fovea? Recent studies emphasized the role of foveal information in defining peripheral size percepts. However, they could not disentangle bottom-up from top-down mechanisms. Here, we revealed a pure top-down contribution to the perceptual size difference between periphery and fovea. First, we discovered a novel Ebbinghaus illusion effect, inducing a typical reduction of foveal perceived size, but a reversed increase effect in the periphery. The resulting illusory size percept was similar at both locations, deviating from the classic perceptual difference. Then through an updating process of successive peripheral-foveal viewing, the unusual peripheral perceived size decreased. The classic perceptual eccentricity difference was restored and the peripheral illusion effect changed into a fovea-like reduction. Therefore, we report the existence of a prior that actively shapes peripheral size perception and stabilizes it relative to the fovea.

Indexed as

Optical IllusionsSize PerceptionVisual PerceptionAdultFemaleFovea CentralisHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhotic StimulationVisual FieldsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32724119
PMCPMC7387537
OpenAlexW3046211355

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.