Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36306146›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2022

Psychophysics and computational modeling of feature-continuous motion perception.

Felix M Töpfer, Riccardo Barbieri, Charlie M Sexton, Xinhao Wang, Joram Soch, Carsten Bogler, John-Dylan Haynes

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Felix M TöpferCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience, Berlin Center for Advanced Neuroimaging, and Department of Neurology, Berlin, Germany.
Riccardo BarbieriCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience, Berlin Center for Advanced Neuroimaging, and Department of Neurology, Berlin, Germany.
Charlie M SextonCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience, Berlin Center for Advanced Neuroimaging, and Department of Neurology, Berlin, Germany.
Xinhao WangHumboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin School of Mind and Brain and Institute of Psychology, Berlin, Germany.
Joram SochCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience, Berlin Center for Advanced Neuroimaging, and Department of Neurology, Berlin, Germany.
Carsten BoglerCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience, Berlin Center for Advanced Neuroimaging, and Department of Neurology, Berlin, Germany.
John-Dylan HaynesCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience, Berlin Center for Advanced Neuroimaging, and Department of Neurology, Berlin, Germany.
Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Berlin · DEHumboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEFreie Universität Berlin · DERiverbank Local Redevelopment Authority · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Motion PerceptionComputer SimulationHumansPsychophysics

Identifiers

PMID36306146
PMCPMC9624271
OpenAlexW4307508920

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.