ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2021
A neural-based account of sequential bias during perceptual judgment.
Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Serial dependence in visual perception: A meta-analysis and review.Journal of vision · 2023Pooled it
- Continuity fields enhance visual perception through positive serial dependence.Nature reviews. Psychology · 2024Article
- Serial dependence in visual perception: A review.Journal of vision · 2023Review
- You see what you look for: Targets and distractors in visual search can cause opposing serial dependencies.Journal of vision · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Sequential effects are prominent and pervasive phenomena that exist in most perceptual judgments. Of importance, these effects reflect dynamic aspects in our judgment bias induced by the recent context. When making successive judgments in response to a sequence of stimuli, two opposing consequences have frequently been observed: assimilation effects - current stimuli judged as being closer to preceding stimuli than they actually are, and contrast effects - current stimuli judged as being further from preceding stimuli than they actually are. Although several cognitive accounts have been previously proposed, there is still a lack of consensus on the underlying mechanism, particularly regarding the insights of the temporal dynamics. Building upon accumulating human M/EEG findings, I propose a framework to explain how sequential bias is generated, unfolded over time, and eventually incorporated into the formation of current biased judgment. By bringing sequential effects closer to a biologically plausible framework, this synthetic view could account for how the opposing consequences of sequential effects differentially evolve, distinguish the effects from other perceptual phenomena with similar behavioral outcomes (such as aftereffects and priming), and illuminate how perceptual judgment is adaptively adjusted under the impact of temporal context.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33742422What 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.