ArticleJournal of vision2024
Feature binding is slow: Temporal integration explains apparent ultrafast binding.
Article in Journal of vision, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond binding: from modular to natural vision.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2025Review
- Feature binding is slow: Temporal integration explains apparent ultrafast binding.Journal of vision · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Visual perception involves binding of distinct features into a unified percept. Although traditional theories link feature binding to time-consuming recurrent processes, Holcombe and Cavanagh (2001) demonstrated ultrafast, early binding of features that belong to the same object. The task required binding of orientation and luminance within an exceptionally short presentation time. However, because visual stimuli were presented over multiple presentation cycles, their findings can alternatively be explained by temporal integration over the extended stimulus sequence. Here, we conducted three experiments manipulating the number of presentation cycles. If early binding occurs, one extremely short cycle should be sufficient for feature integration. Conversely, late binding theories predict that successful binding requires substantial time and improves with additional presentation cycles. Our findings indicate that task-relevant binding of features from the same object occurs slowly, supporting late binding theories.
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.