Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39356552›Full record

ArticleeLife2024

Cardiac afferent signals can facilitate visual dominance in binocular rivalry.

John P Veillette, Fan Gao, Howard C Nusbaum

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

John P VeilletteDepartment of Psychology, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0332-4372
Fan GaoDepartment of Psychology, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States.
Howard C NusbaumDepartment of Psychology, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States.

Funding

National Science Foundation 2024923National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program (1746045)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sensory signals from the body's visceral organs (e.g. the heart) can robustly influence the perception of exteroceptive sensations. This interoceptive-exteroceptive interaction has been argued to underlie self-awareness by situating one's perceptual awareness of exteroceptive stimuli in the context of one's internal state, but studies probing cardiac influences on visual awareness have yielded conflicting findings. In this study, we presented separate grating stimuli to each of subjects' eyes as in a classic binocular rivalry paradigm - measuring the duration for which each stimulus dominates in perception. However, we caused the gratings to 'pulse' at specific times relative to subjects' real-time electrocardiogram, manipulating whether pulses occurred during cardiac systole, when baroreceptors signal to the brain that the heart has contracted, or in diastole when baroreceptors are silent. The influential 'Baroreceptor Hypothesis' predicts the effect of baroreceptive input on visual perception should be uniformly suppressive. In contrast, we observed that dominance durations increased for systole-entrained stimuli, inconsistent with the Baroreceptor Hypothesis. Furthermore, we show that this cardiac-dependent rivalry effect is preserved in subjects who are at-chance discriminating between systole-entrained and diastole-presented stimuli in a separate interoceptive awareness task, suggesting that our results are not dependent on conscious access to heartbeat sensations.

Indexed as

Visual PerceptionAdultDominance, OcularFemaleHeartHumansMalePhotic StimulationPressoreceptorsVision, BinocularYoung Adultbinocular rivalrybinocular visionbistable perceptionbrain–heart interactionembodimenthumaninteroceptionneuroscience

Identifiers

PMID39356552
PMCPMC11446544

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.