Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35301373›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

A nasal visual field advantage in interocular competition.

A Sahakian, C L E Paffen, S Van der Stigchel, S Gayet

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

A SahakianExperimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 1, 3584 CS, Utrecht, The Netherlands. a.sahakian@uu.nl.
C L E PaffenExperimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 1, 3584 CS, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
S Van der StigchelExperimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 1, 3584 CS, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
S GayetExperimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 1, 3584 CS, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Utrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When our eyes are confronted with discrepant images (yielding incompatible retinal inputs) interocular competition (IOC) is instigated. During IOC, one image temporarily dominates perception, while the other is suppressed. Many factors affecting IOC have been extensively examined. One factor that received surprisingly little attention, however, is the stimulus' visual hemifield (VHF) of origin. This is remarkable, as the VHF location of stimuli is known to affect visual performance in various contexts. Prompted by exploratory analyses, we examined five independent datasets of breaking continuous flash suppression experiments, to establish the VHF's role in IOC. We found that targets presented in nasal VHF locations broke through suppression much faster than targets in temporal VHF locations. Furthermore, we found that the magnitude of this nasal advantage depended on how strongly the targets were suppressed: the nasal advantage was larger for the recessive eye than for the dominant eye, and was larger in observers with a greater dominance imbalance between the eyes. Our findings suggest that the nasal advantage reported here originates in processing stages where IOC is resolved. Finally, we propose that a nasal advantage in IOC serves an adaptive role in human vision, as it can aid perception of partially occluded objects.

Indexed as

Vision, BinocularVisual PerceptionAttentionHumansPhotic StimulationRetinaVisual Fields

Identifiers

PMID35301373
PMCPMC8931001
OpenAlexW4221031360

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.