Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36979190›Full record

ArticleBrain sciences2023

Figure-Ground Segmentation and Biological Motion Perception in Peripheral Visual Field.

Ilze Ceple, Jurgis Skilters, Vsevolod Lyakhovetskii, Inga Jurcinska, Gunta Krumina

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain sciences, 2023. 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
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 55% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ilze CepleDepartment of Optometry and Vision Science, University of Latvia, LV-1586 Rīga, Latvia.ORCID 0000-0002-9396-3628
Jurgis SkiltersLaboratory for Perceptual and Cognitive Systems, Faculty of Computing, University of Latvia, LV-1586 Rīga, Latvia.ORCID 0000-0002-3235-970X
Vsevolod LyakhovetskiiDepartment of Optometry and Vision Science, University of Latvia, LV-1586 Rīga, Latvia.ORCID 0000-0001-5948-0991
Inga JurcinskaDepartment of Optometry and Vision Science, University of Latvia, LV-1586 Rīga, Latvia.
Gunta KruminaDepartment of Optometry and Vision Science, University of Latvia, LV-1586 Rīga, Latvia.ORCID 0000-0002-5726-3819
University of Latvia · LV

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biological motion perception is a specific type of perceptual organization, during which a clear image of a moving human body is perceptually generated in virtue of certain core light dots representing the major joint movements. While the processes of biological motion perception have been studied extensively for almost a century, there is still a debate on whether biological motion task performance can be equally precise across all visual field or is central visual field specified for biological motion perception. The current study explores the processes of biological motion perception and figure-ground segmentation in the central and peripheral visual field, expanding the understanding of perceptual organization across different eccentricities. The method involved three different tasks of visual grouping: (1) a static visual grouping task, (2) a dynamic visual grouping task, and (3) a biological motion detection task. The stimuli in (1) and (2) were generated from 12-13 dots grouped by proximity and common fate, and, in (3), light dots representing human motion. All stimuli were embedded in static or dynamics visual noise and the threshold value for the number of noise dots in which the elements could still be grouped by proximity and/or common fate was determined. The results demonstrate that biological motion can be differentiated from the scrambled set of moving dots in a more intensive visual noise than static and dynamic visual grouping tasks. Furthermore, in all three visual tasks (static and dynamic grouping, and biological motion detection) the performance was significantly worse in the periphery than in the central visual field, and object magnification could not compensate for the reduced performance in any of the three grouping tasks. The preliminary results of nine participants indicate that (a) human motion perception involves specific perceptual processes, providing the high-accuracy perception of the human body and (b) the processes of figure-ground segmentation are governed by the bottom-up processes and the best performance can be achieved only when the object is demonstrated in the central visual field.

Indexed as

biological motioncortical magnificationvisual periphery

Identifiers

PMID36979190
PMCPMC10046209
OpenAlexW4321495767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read2
measurements read5
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.