Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37862008›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2023

Temporal dynamics of normalization reweighting.

Daniel H Baker, Daniela Marinova, Richard Aveyard, Lydia J Hargreaves, Alice Renton, Ruby Castellani, Phoebe Hall, Miriam Harmens, Georgia Holroyd, Beth Nicholson and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 49% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Daniel H BakerDepartment of Psychology and York Biomedical Research Institute, University of York, York, UK.
Daniela MarinovaDepartment of Psychology, University of York, York, UK.
Richard AveyardYork Neuroimaging Centre, University of York, York, UK.
Lydia J HargreavesDepartment of Psychology, University of York, York, UK.
Alice RentonDepartment of Psychology, University of York, York, UK.
Ruby CastellaniDepartment of Psychology, University of York, York, UK.
Phoebe HallDepartment of Psychology, University of York, York, UK.
Miriam HarmensDepartment of Psychology, University of York, York, UK.
Georgia HolroydDepartment of Psychology, University of York, York, UK.
Beth NicholsonDepartment of Psychology, University of York, York, UK.
Emily L WilliamsDepartment of Psychology, University of York, York, UK.
Hannah M HobsonDepartment of Psychology and York Biomedical Research Institute, University of York, York, UK.
Alex R WadeDepartment of Psychology and York Biomedical Research Institute, University of York, York, UK.
University of York · GBMiriam Hospital · USNature Conservation Centre · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For decades, neural suppression in early visual cortex has been thought to be fixed. But recent work has challenged this assumption by showing that suppression can be reweighted based on recent history; when pairs of stimuli are repeatedly presented together, suppression between them strengthens. Here we investigate the temporal dynamics of this process using a steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP) paradigm that provides a time-resolved, direct index of suppression between pairs of stimuli flickering at different frequencies (5 and 7 Hz). Our initial analysis of an existing electroencephalography (EEG) dataset (N = 100) indicated that suppression increases substantially during the first 2-5 seconds of stimulus presentation (with some variation across stimulation frequency). We then collected new EEG data (N = 100) replicating this finding for both monocular and dichoptic mask arrangements in a preregistered study designed to measure reweighting. A third experiment (N = 20) used source-localized magnetoencephalography and found that these effects are apparent in primary visual cortex (V1), consistent with results from neurophysiological work. Because long-standing theories propose inhibition/excitation differences in autism, we also compared reweighting between individuals with high versus low autistic traits, and with and without an autism diagnosis, across our three datasets (total N = 220). We find no compelling differences in reweighting that are associated with autism. Our results support the normalization reweighting model and indicate that for prolonged stimulation, increases in suppression occur on the order of 2-5 seconds after stimulus onset.

Indexed as

Autistic DisorderEvoked Potentials, VisualElectroencephalographyHumansMagnetoencephalographyPhotic Stimulation

Identifiers

PMID37862008
PMCPMC10615141
OpenAlexW4387798851

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.