ArticlePloS one2023
Foveal feedback in perceptual processing: Contamination of neural representations and task difficulty effects.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- On the relationship between foveal mask interference and mental imagery in peripheral object recognition.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Visual object recognition was traditionally believed to rely on a hierarchical feedforward process. However, recent evidence challenges this notion by demonstrating the crucial role of foveal retinotopic cortex and feedback signals from higher-level visual areas in processing peripheral visual information. The nature of the information conveyed through foveal feedback remains a topic of debate. To address this, we conducted a study employing a foveal mask paradigm with varying stimulus-mask onset asynchronies in a peripheral same/different task, where peripheral objects exhibited different degrees of similarity. Our hypothesis posited that simultaneous arrival of feedback and mask information in the foveal cortex would lead to neural contamination, biasing perception. Notably, when the two peripheral objects were identical, we observed a significant increase in the number of "different" responses, peaking at approximately 100 ms. Similar effect was found when the objects were dissimilar, but with an overall later timing (around 150 ms). No significant difference was found when comparing easy (dissimilar objects) and difficult trials (similar objects). The findings challenge the hypothesis that foveation planning alone accounts for the observed effects. Instead, these and previous observations support the notion that the foveal cortex serves as a visual sketchpad for maintaining and manipulating task-relevant information.
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.