ArticleJournal of vision2021
Transsaccadic visual perception of foveal compared to peripheral environmental changes.
Article in Journal of vision, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Computational Characterization of Decision Making During Trans-saccadic Visual Perception.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
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
The maintenance of stable visual perception across eye movements is hypothesized to be aided by extraretinal information (e.g., corollary discharge [CD]). Previous studies have focused on the benefits of this information for perception at the fovea. However, there is little information on the extent that CD benefits peripheral visual perception. Here we systematically examined the extent that CD supports the ability to perceive transsaccadic changes at the fovea compared to peripheral changes. Human subjects made saccades to targets positioned at different amplitudes (4° or 8°) and directions (rightward or upward). On each trial there was a reference point located either at (fovea) or 4° away (periphery) from the target. During the saccade the target and reference disappeared and, after a blank period, the reference reappeared at a shifted location. Subjects reported the perceived shift direction, and we determined the perceptual threshold for detection and estimate of the reference location. We also simulated the detection and location if subjects solely relied on the visual error of the shifted reference experienced after the saccade. The comparison of the reference location under these two conditions showed that overall the perceptual estimate was approximately 53% more accurate and 30% less variable than estimates based solely on visual information at the fovea. These values for peripheral shifts were consistently lower than that at the fovea: 34% more accurate and 9% less variable. Overall, the results suggest that CD information does support stable visual perception in the periphery, but is consistently less beneficial compared to the fovea.
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.