ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023
A mechanistic account of visual discomfort.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Cerebral Basis for Visual Discomfort and Visual Stress.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The Minimum Semantic Content (MSC) Dataset: A Large, Balanced Resource for Computational Aesthetics Research.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Less is more: Aesthetic liking is inversely related to metabolic expense by the visual system.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
- Auditory discomfort and visual sensitivity.Vision research · 2025Article
- Article
- Support for the efficient coding account of visual discomfort.Visual neuroscience · 2024Article
- A mechanistic account of visual discomfort.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Sensory sensitivity and visual discomfort are not associated with altered gamma oscillations: A test of the excitation-inhibition hypothesis.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Much of the neural machinery of the early visual cortex, from the extraction of local orientations to contextual modulations through lateral interactions, is thought to have developed to provide a sparse encoding of contour in natural scenes, allowing the brain to process efficiently most of the visual scenes we are exposed to. Certain visual stimuli, however, cause visual stress, a set of adverse effects ranging from simple discomfort to migraine attacks, and epileptic seizures in the extreme, all phenomena linked with an excessive metabolic demand. The theory of efficient coding suggests a link between excessive metabolic demand and images that deviate from natural statistics. Yet, the mechanisms linking energy demand and image spatial content in discomfort remain elusive. Here, we used theories of visual coding that link image spatial structure and brain activation to characterize the response to images observers reported as uncomfortable in a biologically based neurodynamic model of the early visual cortex that included excitatory and inhibitory layers to implement contextual influences. We found three clear markers of aversive images: a larger overall activation in the model, a less sparse response, and a more unbalanced distribution of activity across spatial orientations. When the ratio of excitation over inhibition was increased in the model, a phenomenon hypothesised to underlie interindividual differences in susceptibility to visual discomfort, the three markers of discomfort progressively shifted toward values typical of the response to uncomfortable stimuli. Overall, these findings propose a unifying mechanistic explanation for why there are differences between images and between observers, suggesting how visual input and idiosyncratic hyperexcitability give rise to abnormal brain responses that result in visual stress.
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.