ArticleeNeuro2023
Bayesian and Discriminative Models for Active Visual Perception across Saccades.
Article in eNeuro, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Selective encoding of priors for flexible categorization but not Bayesian inference in the frontal eye field.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- A Distinct Circuit for Biasing Visual Perceptual Decisions and Modulating Superior Colliculus Activity through the Mouse Posterior Striatum.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- A distinct circuit for biasing visual perceptual decisions and modulating superior colliculus activity through the mouse posterior striatum.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- The Relationship Between Environmental Statistics and Predictive Gaze Behaviour During a Manual Interception Task: Eye Movements as Active Inference.Computational brain & behavior · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The brain interprets sensory inputs to guide behavior, but behavior itself disrupts sensory inputs. Perceiving a coherent world while acting in it constitutes active perception. For example, saccadic eye movements displace visual images on the retina and yet the brain perceives visual stability. Because this percept of visual stability has been shown to be influenced by prior expectations, we tested the hypothesis that it is Bayesian. The key prediction was that priors would be used more as sensory uncertainty increases. Humans and rhesus macaques reported whether an image moved during saccades. We manipulated both prior expectations and levels of sensory uncertainty. All psychophysical data were compared with the predictions of Bayesian ideal observer models. We found that humans were Bayesian for continuous judgments. For categorical judgments, however, they were anti-Bayesian: they used their priors less with greater uncertainty. We studied this categorical result further in macaques. The animals' judgments were similarly anti-Bayesian for sensory uncertainty caused by external, image noise, but Bayesian for uncertainty due to internal, motor-driven noise. A discriminative learning model explained the anti-Bayesian effects. We conclude that active vision uses both Bayesian and discriminative models depending on task requirements (continuous vs categorical) and the source of uncertainty (image noise vs motor-driven noise). In the context of previous knowledge about the saccadic system, our results provide an example of how the comparative analysis of Bayesian versus non-Bayesian models of perception offers novel insights into underlying neural organization.
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.