ArticleCerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991)2022
Distinct Contributions of Genes and Environment to Visual Size Illusion and the Underlying Neural Mechanism.
Article in Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feedforward Processing in Early Visual Cortex Underlies the Ebbinghaus Illusion.Cognitive science · 2026Article
- Distinct Contributions of Alpha and Beta Oscillations to Context-Dependent Visual Size Perception.Neuroscience bulletin · 2024Article
- Neuroimaging evidence of visual-vestibular interaction accounting for perceptual mislocalization induced by head rotation.Neurophotonics · 2024Article
- Number comparison under the Ebbinghaus illusion.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As exemplified by the Ebbinghaus illusion, the perceived size of an object can be significantly biased by its surrounding context. The phenomenon is experienced by humans as well as other species, hence likely evolutionarily adaptive. Here, we examined the heritability of the Ebbinghaus illusion using a combination of the classic twin method and multichannel functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Results show that genes account for over 50% of the variance in the strength of the experienced illusion. Interestingly, activations evoked by the Ebbinghaus stimuli in the early visual cortex are explained by genetic factors whereas those in the posterior temporal cortex are explained by environmental factors. In parallel, the feedforward functional connectivity between the occipital cortex and the temporal cortex is modulated by genetic effects whereas the feedback functional connectivity is entirely shaped by environment, despite both being significantly correlated with the strength of the experienced illusion. These findings demonstrate that genetic and environmental factors work in tandem to shape the context-dependent visual size illusion, and shed new light on the links among genes, environment, brain, and subjective experience.
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.