Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40116654›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2025

Measuring the influence of contrast, ambiguity, and side of spatial context on perceptual dominance during binocular rivalry.

Lisa Beckmann, Thomas Schenk, Karin Ludwig

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Lisa BeckmannClinical Neuropsychology, Department of Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Thomas SchenkClinical Neuropsychology, Department of Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Karin LudwigClinical Neuropsychology, Department of Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The perception of ambiguous stimuli, notably binocular rivalry (BR), has been demonstrated to be influenced by spatial context. Previous results are, however, inconsistent with regard to whether the context biases perception toward the BR target that matches the context or toward the one that differs from the context. Furthermore, it is unclear what roles the perceptual ambiguity of the context and its lateral location play. We varied ambiguity, contrast, size, and location (left/right) of the context surrounding a rivalry target in a high-powered within-subject design to investigate (1) the effects of contrast and ambiguity of the surrounding context and (2) whether we could find laterality effects that correlated with an established pseudoneglect measure. The results showed an increase in perceptual predominance of the rivalry targets differing from the surround across all high-contrast conditions (irrespective of the ambiguity of the context), whereas the effect in the low-contrast condition was less pronounced. We found no laterality effects, but the strength of the context effects scaled with the context size (half/full). In an exploratory analysis, we further found a nasal advantage in the half-field condition. We interpret the results in the theoretical frameworks of surround inhibition and facilitation, figure-ground segregation, pseudoneglect, and nasal visual field advantage.

Indexed as

Contrast SensitivityDominance, OcularSpace PerceptionVision, BinocularVision DisparityAdultFemaleFunctional LateralityHumansMalePhotic StimulationYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40116654
PMCPMC11935559

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.