Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34264290›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2021

Transsaccadic integration operates independently in different feature dimensions.

Garry Kong, David Aagten-Murphy, Jessica M V McMaster, Paul M Bays

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Garry KongDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
David Aagten-MurphyDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Jessica M V McMasterDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Paul M BaysDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our knowledge about objects in our environment reflects an integration of current visual input with information from preceding gaze fixations. Such a mechanism may reduce uncertainty but requires the visual system to determine which information obtained in different fixations should be combined or kept separate. To investigate the basis of this decision, we conducted three experiments. Participants viewed a stimulus in their peripheral vision and then made a saccade that shifted the object into the opposite hemifield. During the saccade, the object underwent changes of varying magnitude in two feature dimensions (Experiment 1, color and location; Experiments 2 and 3, color and orientation). Participants reported whether they detected any change and estimated one of the postsaccadic features. Integration of presaccadic with postsaccadic input was observed as a bias in estimates toward the presaccadic feature value. In all experiments, presaccadic bias weakened as the magnitude of the transsaccadic change in the estimated feature increased. Changes in the other feature, despite having a similar probability of detection, had no effect on integration. Results were quantitatively captured by an observer model where the decision whether to integrate information from sequential fixations is made independently for each feature and coupled to awareness of a feature change.

Indexed as

Fixation, OcularSaccadesBiasHumansPhotic StimulationUncertaintyVisual Perception

Identifiers

PMID34264290
PMCPMC8288057

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.