Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37848658›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2024

Need for cross-level iterative re-entry in models of visual processing.

Thomas M Spalek, K P Unnikrishnan, Vincent Di Lollo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Thomas M SpalekDepartment of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6, Canada. tspalek@sfu.ca.
K P UnnikrishnaneNeuroLearn, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Vincent Di LolloDepartment of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Two main hypotheses regarding the directional flow of visual information processing in the brain have been proposed: feed-forward (bottom-up) and re-entrant (top-down). Early theories espoused feed-forward principles in which processing was said to advance from simple to increasingly complex attributes terminating at a higher area where conscious perceptions occur. That view is disconfirmed by advances in neuroanatomy and neurophysiology, which implicate re-entrant two-way signaling as the predominant form of communication between brain regions. With some notable exceptions, the notion of re-entrant processing has had a relatively modest effect on computational models of perception and cognition, which continue to be predominantly based on feed-forward or within-level re-entrant principles. In the present work we describe five sets of empirical findings that defy interpretation in terms of feed-forward or within-level re-entrant principles. We conclude by urging the adoption of psychophysical, biological, and computational models based on cross-level iterative re-entrant principles.

Indexed as

Visual PerceptionBrainHumansModels, NeurologicalVisual PathwaysBiological modelsComputational modelsCross-level re-entryFeed-forward processingRe-entrant processing

Identifiers

PMID37848658
PMCPMC11192676

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.