ArticleVision research2021
A bias in saccadic suppression of shape change.
Article in Vision research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transsaccadic perception of changes in object regularity.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- Perceptual learning across saccades: Feature but not location specific.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Familiar objects benefit more from transsaccadic feature predictions.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2023Article
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
Processing of visual information in the central (foveal) and peripheral visual field is vastly different. To achieve a homogeneous representation of the visual world across eye movements, the visual system needs to compensate for these differences. By introducing subtle changes between peripheral and foveal inputs across saccades, one can test this compensation. We morphed shapes between a triangle and a circle and presented two different change directions (circularity decrease or increase) at varying magnitudes across a saccade. In a change-discrimination task, observers disproportionally often reported percepts of circularity increase. To test the relationship with visual-field differences, we measured perception when shapes were exclusively presented either in the periphery (before a saccade), or in the fovea (after a saccade). We found that overall shapes were perceived as more circular before than after a saccade and the more pronounced this difference was for a participant, the smaller was their circularity-increase bias in the change-discrimination task. We propose that visual-field differences have a direct and an indirect influence on transsaccadic perception of shape change. The direct influence is based on the distinct appearance of shape in the central and peripheral visual field in a trial, causing an increase of the perceptual magnitude of circularity-decrease changes. The indirect influence is based on long-term build-up of transsaccadic expectations; if a change is opposite (circularity increase) to the expectation (circularity decrease), it should elicit a strong error signal facilitating change detection. We discuss the concept of transsaccadic expectations and theoretical implications for transsaccadic perception of other feature changes.
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.