ArticleJournal of vision2022
Psychophysics and computational modeling of feature-continuous motion perception.
Article in Journal of vision, 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dissecting the components of error in analogue report tasks.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Working memory signals in early visual cortex are present in weak and strong imagers.Human brain mapping · 2024Article
- Encoding of continuous perceptual choices in human early visual cortex.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
- Psychophysics and computational modeling of feature-continuous motion perception.Journal of vision · 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 at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sensory decision-making is frequently studied using categorical tasks, even though the feature space of most stimuli is continuous. Recently, it has become more common to measure feature perception in a gradual fashion, say when studying motion perception across the full space of directions. However, continuous reports can be contaminated by perceptual or motor biases. Here, we examined such biases on perceptual reports by comparing two response methods. With the first method, participants reported motion direction in a motor reference frame by moving a trackball. With the second method, participants used a perceptual frame of reference with a perceptual comparison stimulus. We tested biases using three different versions of random dot kinematograms. We found strong and systematic biases in responses when reporting the direction in a motor frame of reference. For the perceptual frame of reference, these systematic biases were not evident. Independent of the response method, we also detected a systematic misperception where subjects sometimes confuse the physical stimulus direction with its opposite direction. This was confirmed using a von Mises mixture model that estimated the contribution of veridical perception, misperception, and guessing. Importantly, the more sensitive perceptual reporting method revealed that, with increasing levels of sensory evidence, perceptual performance increases not only in the form of higher detection probability, but under certain conditions also in the form of increased precision.
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.