ArticleScientific reports2024
Right visual field advantage in orientation discrimination is influenced by biased suppression.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Eye-Tracking-Based Evaluation of Visual Search Efficiency in Simulated VR Menu Interfaces: Effects of Card Layout Structure and Target Spatial Quadrant.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Visual input is not equally processed over space. In recent years, a right visual field advantage during free walking and standing in orientation discrimination and contrast detection task was reported. The current study investigated the underlying mechanism of the previously reported right visual field advantage. It particularly tested if the advantage is driven by a stronger suppression of distracting input from the left visual field or improved processing of targets from the right visual field. Combing behavioural and electrophysiological measurements in a mobile EEG and augmented reality setup, human participants (n = 30) in a standing and a walking condition performed a line orientation discrimination task with stimulus eccentricity and distractor status being manipulated. The right visual field advantage, as demonstrated in accuracy and reaction time, was influenced by the distractor status. Specifically, the right visual field advantage was only observed when the target had an incongruent line orientation with the distractor. Neural data further showed that the right visual field advantage was paralleled by a strong modulation of neural activity in the right hemisphere (i.e. contralateral to the distractor). A significant positive correlation between this right hemispheric event related potential (ERP) and behavioural measures (accuracy and reaction time) was found exclusively for trials in which a target was presented on the right and an incongruent distractor was presented on the left. The right hemispheric ERP component further predicted the strength of the right visual field advantage. Notably, the lateralised brain activity and the right visual field advantage were both independent of stimulus eccentricity and the movement state of participants. Overall, our findings suggest an important role of spatially biased suppression of left distracting input in the right visual field advantage as found in orientation discrimination.
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.