Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33602975›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Hidden by bias: how standard psychophysical procedures conceal crucial aspects of peripheral visual appearance.

Fazilet Zeynep Yildirim, Daniel R Coates, Bilge Sayim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Attention in redundancy masking.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Fazilet Zeynep YildirimInstitute of Psychology, University of Bern, Fabrikstrasse 8, 3012, Bern, Switzerland. fazilet.yildirim@psy.unibe.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8754-8137
Daniel R CoatesInstitute of Psychology, University of Bern, Fabrikstrasse 8, 3012, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5682-2554
Bilge SayimInstitute of Psychology, University of Bern, Fabrikstrasse 8, 3012, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7589-5385

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The perception of a target depends on other stimuli surrounding it in time and space. This contextual modulation is ubiquitous in visual perception, and is usually quantified by measuring performance on sets of highly similar stimuli. Implicit or explicit comparisons among the stimuli may, however, inadvertently bias responses and conceal strong variability of target appearance. Here, we investigated the influence of contextual stimuli on the perception of a repeating pattern (a line triplet), presented in the visual periphery. In the neutral condition, the triplet was presented a single time to capture its minimally biased perception. In the similar and dissimilar conditions, it was presented within stimulus sets composed of lines similar to the triplet, and distinct shapes, respectively. The majority of observers reported perceiving a line pair in the neutral and dissimilar conditions, revealing 'redundancy masking', the reduction of the perceived number of repeating items. In the similar condition, by contrast, the number of lines was overestimated. Our results show that the similar context did not reveal redundancy masking which was only observed in the neutral and dissimilar context. We suggest that the influence of contextual stimuli has inadvertently concealed this crucial aspect of peripheral appearance.

Indexed as

BiasPattern Recognition, VisualPerceptual MaskingVisual PerceptionAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhotic StimulationPsychophysicsVisual FieldsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33602975
PMCPMC7892995

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.