ArticleBrain communications2024
Network dynamics underlying alterations in apparent object size.
Article in Brain communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feedforward Processing in Early Visual Cortex Underlies the Ebbinghaus Illusion.Cognitive science · 2026Article
- Aversively conditioned context enhances visual size illusion via stimulus-specific neural networks.iScience · 2025Article
- Rhythmic beta-frequency TMS over human right parietal cortex strengthens visual size illusions.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Prefrontal-Dependent and Gender-Specific Modulation of Guilt Emotion on Human Early Visual Perception.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Distinct Contributions of Alpha and Beta Oscillations to Context-Dependent Visual Size Perception.Neuroscience bulletin · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A target circle surrounded by small circles looks larger than an identical circle surrounded by large circles (termed as the Ebbinghaus illusion). While previous research has shown that both early and high-level visual regions are involved in the generation of the illusion, it remains unclear how these regions work together to modulate the illusion effect. Here, we used functional MRI and dynamic causal modelling to investigate the neural networks underlying the illusion in conditions where the focus of attention was manipulated via participants directing their attention to and maintain fixation on only one of the two illusory configurations at a time. Behavioural findings confirmed the presence of the illusion. Accordingly, functional MRI activity in the extrastriate cortex accounted for the illusory effects: apparently larger circles elicited greater activation than apparently smaller circles. Interestingly, this spread of activity for size overestimation was accompanied by a decrease in the inhibitory self-connection in the extrastriate region, and an increase in the feedback connectivity from the precuneus to the extrastriate region. These findings demonstrate that the representation of apparent object size relies on feedback projections from higher- to lower-level visual areas, highlighting the crucial role of top-down signals in conscious visual perception.
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.