ArticlePloS one2024
Short communication: Binocular rivalry dynamics during locomotion.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
Locomotion has been shown to impact aspects of visual processing in both humans and animal models. In the current study, we assess the impact of locomotion on the dynamics of binocular rivalry. We presented orthogonal gratings, one contrast-modulating at 0.8 Hz (matching average step frequency) and the other at 3.2 Hz, to participants using a virtual reality headset. We compared two conditions: stationary and walking. We continuously monitored participants' foot position using tracking devices to measure the step cycle. During the walking condition, participants viewed the rivaling gratings for 60-second trials while walking on a circular path in a virtual reality environment. During the stationary condition, observers viewed the same stimuli and environment while standing still. The task was to continuously indicate the dominant percept via button press using handheld controllers. We found no significant differences between walking and standing for normalized dominance duration distributions, mean normalized dominance distributions, mean alternation rates, or mean fitted frequencies. Although our findings do not align with prior research highlighting distinctions in normalized dominance distributions between walking and standing, our study contributes unique evidence indicating that alternation rates vary across the step cycle. Specifically, we observed that the number of alternations is at its lowest during toe-off phases and reaches its peak at heel strike. This novel insight enhances our understanding of the dynamic nature of alternation patterns throughout the step cycle.
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.