Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37796523›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2023

Perceiving depth and motion in depth from successive occlusion.

Abigail R I Lee, Laurie M Wilcox, Robert S Allison

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 85% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Abigail R I LeeCentre for Vision Research, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Laurie M WilcoxCentre for Vision Research, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Robert S AllisonCentre for Vision Research, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
York University · CAGoogle (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Occlusion, or interposition, is one of the strongest and best-known pictorial cues to depth. Furthermore, the successive occlusions of previous objects by newly presented objects produces an impression of increasing depth. Although the perceived motion associated with this illusion has been studied, the depth percept has not. To investigate, participants were presented with two piles of disks with one always static and the other either a static pile or a stacking pile where a new disk was added every 200 ms. We found static piles with equal number of disks appeared equal in height. In contrast, the successive presentation of disks in the stacking condition appeared to enhance the perceived height of the stack-fewer disks were needed to match the static pile. Surprisingly, participants were also more precise when comparing stacking versus static piles of disks. Reversing the stacking by removing rather than adding disks reversed the bias and degraded precision. In follow-up experiments, we used nonoverlapping static and dynamic configurations to show that the effects are not due to simple differences in perceived numerosity. In sum, our results show that successive occlusions generate a greater sense of height than occlusion alone, and we posit that dynamic occlusion may be an underappreciated source of depth information.

Indexed as

IllusionsMotion PerceptionCuesDepth PerceptionHumans

Identifiers

PMID37796523
PMCPMC10561775
OpenAlexW4387357047

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.