ArticleJournal of vision2025
Measuring the influence of contrast, ambiguity, and side of spatial context on perceptual dominance during binocular rivalry.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- When contexts collide: Spatial context prevails over temporal context in binocular rivalry.Journal of vision · 2025Article
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
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
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.