ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2025
Spatial frequency preferences of representations of indoor and natural scene categories in scene-selective regions under different conditions of contrast.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Scene-selective regions were shown to be significantly affected by spatial frequencies (SF) and have different sensitivities to low spatial frequencies (LSF) and high spatial frequencies (HSF). However, previous studies mainly focused on the neural activations or the neural patterns in a single SF band. Methods: To investigate the extent to which the information of a single SF is used in scene category representations, we not only decoded the scene categories in each SF, but also used the neural patterns to LSF or HSF to decode the patterns to non-filtered (NF) scenes based on fMRI data using multivoxel pattern analysis (MVPA). As luminance contrast was shown to follow statistical regularities along with SF, we performed the decoding analyses separately in two conditions of contrast where the contrast of LSF and HSF was unmodified or equalized. Results: The results showed distinct SF preferences in the two contrast conditions, showing that luminance contrast has a significant role in SF processing. In addition, we also performed the above analyses only within natural and indoor scenes, respectively. The results showed the scene-selective regions were more efficient in distinguishing natural scene categories in LSF, and the LSF was preferentially used along with high luminance contrast in recognition of natural scenes. On the other hand, humans preferentially used HSF information in distinguishing indoor scenes. Discussion: This distinct SF preferences maybe caused by the different aspects of information conveyed by LSF and HSF, as well as the different strategies of spatial perception in natural and indoor scenes recognition.
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.