Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34964859›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2021

Perception of the ambiguous motion quartet: A stimulus-observer interaction approach.

Charlotte Boeykens, Johan Wagemans, Pieter Moors

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. V1 as an egocentric cognitive map.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2021
    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

3 authors.

Charlotte BoeykensLaboratory of Experimental Psychology, Department of Brain and Cognition, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Johan WagemansLaboratory of Experimental Psychology, Department of Brain and Cognition, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Pieter MoorsLaboratory of Experimental Psychology, Department of Brain and Cognition, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual perception is the result of a highly complex process depending on both stimulus and observer characteristics and, importantly, their interactions. Generating robust theories and making precise predictions in light of this complexity can be challenging, and the interaction of stimulus- and observer-related effects is often neglected or understated. In the current study, we examined inter- and intra-individual differences and the effects of a wide range of three stimulus characteristics (i.e., spatial distance, temporal distance, and spatial location). Our results indicate that not all individuals show the same group average stimulus-driven effects on the perception of a motion quartet and that these effects are not always equal across the entire stimulus range. Moreover, we observed that there are clear individual differences in spontaneous perceptual dynamics and that these can be overridden by some but not all stimulus manipulations. We conclude that considering different stimulus manipulations, different observers, and their interactions can provide a more nuanced and informative view on the processes governing visual perception. This study examines the effect of spatial distance, spatiotemporal distance, spatial location, and individual differences on the perception of the ambiguous motion quartet.

Indexed as

Motion PerceptionHumansMotionPhotic StimulationVisual Perception

Identifiers

PMID34964859
PMCPMC8740533

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.