Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39388194›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2024

Deconstructing the frame effect.

Mohammad Shams, Peter J Kohler, Patrick Cavanagh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Frame effects across space and time.Journal of vision · 2026
    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.

Mohammad ShamsDepartment of Psychology, Glendon College, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Peter J KohlerCentre for Vision Research, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Patrick CavanaghDepartment of Psychology, Glendon College, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The perception of an object's location is profoundly influenced by the surrounding dynamics. This is dramatically demonstrated by the frame effect, where a moving frame induces substantial shifts in the perceived location of objects that flash within it. In this study, we examined the elements contributing to the large magnitude of this effect. Across three experiments, we manipulated the number of probes, the dynamics of the frame, and the spatiotemporal relationships between probes and the frame. We found that the presence of multiple probes amplified the position shift, whereas the accumulation of the frame effect over repeated motion cycles was minimal. Notably, an oscillating frame generated more pronounced effects compared to a unidirectional moving frame. Furthermore, the spatiotemporal distance between the frame and the probe played pivotal roles, with larger shifts observed near the leading edge of the frame. Interestingly, although larger frames produced stronger position shifts, the maximum shift occurred almost at the same distance relative to the frame's center across all tested sizes. Our findings suggest that the number of probes, frame size, relative probe-frame distance, and frame dynamics collectively contribute to the magnitude of the position shift.

Indexed as

Motion PerceptionPhotic StimulationAdultFemaleHumansMaleOptical IllusionsSpace PerceptionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39388194
PMCPMC11472888

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.