ArticleeNeuro2025
Heterogeneity in Category Recognition across the Visual Field.
Article in eNeuro, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Visual information emerging from the extrafoveal locations is important for visual search, saccadic eye movement control, and spatial attention allocation. Our everyday sensory experience with visual object categories varies across different parts of the visual field which may result in location-contingent variations in visual object recognition. We used a body, animal body, and chair two-forced choice object category recognition task to investigate this possibility. Animal body and chair images with various levels of visual ambiguity were presented at the fovea and different extrafoveal locations across the vertical and horizontal meridians. We found heterogeneous body and chair category recognition across the visual field. Specifically, while the recognition performance of the body and chair presented at the fovea were similar, it varied across different extrafoveal locations. The largest difference was observed when the body and chair images were presented at the lower-left and upper-right visual fields, respectively. The lower/upper visual field bias of the body/chair recognition was particularly observed in low/high stimulus visual signals. Finally, when subjects' performances were adjusted for a potential location-contingent decision bias in category recognition by subtracting the category detection in full noise condition, location-dependent category recognition was observed only for the body category. These results suggest heterogeneous body recognition bias across the visual field potentially due to more frequent exposure of the lower visual field to body stimuli.
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.