Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40186769›Full record

ArticleBrain structure & function2025

In the brain of the beholder: bi-stable motion reveals mesoscopic-scale feedback modulation in V1.

Alessandra Pizzuti, Omer Faruk Gulban, Laurentius Renzo Huber, Judith Carolien Peters, Rainer Goebel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain structure & function, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Alessandra PizzutiDepartment of Cognitive Neuroscience, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. a.pizzuti@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Omer Faruk GulbanDepartment of Cognitive Neuroscience, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Laurentius Renzo HuberNational Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Judith Carolien PetersDepartment of Cognitive Neuroscience, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Rainer GoebelDepartment of Cognitive Neuroscience, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. r.goebel@maastrichtuniversity.nl.

Funding

EU-project H2020 860563European Union's Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 945539NWO VENI 016.Veni.198.032
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding the neural processes underlying conscious perception remains a central goal in neuroscience. Visual illusions, whether static or dynamic, provide an effective ecological paradigm for studying conscious perception, as they induce subjective experiences from constant visual inputs. While previous neuroimaging studies have dissociated perceptual interpretation of visual motion from sensory input within the motion-sensitive area (hMT+) in humans, less is known about the role of the primary visual area (V1) and its relationship to hMT+ during a bistable perception. To address this, we conducted a layer-fMRI study at 7 T with human participants exposed to a bistable motion quartet stimulus. Despite a constant sensory input, the bistable motion quartet elicits switching horizontal and vertical apparent motion percepts likely due to lateral and feedback connections across low and high-level brain regions (feedback processing). As control, we used an "unambiguous" version of the motion quartet, hereafter referred to as "physical" motion stimulus, where horizontal and vertical motion is physically presented as visual stimulus in an alternated fashion (feedforward processing). With the advantage of a sub-millimeter resolution gained at ultra-high magnetic field (7 Tesla), we aimed to unveil the differential laminar modulation of V1 (early visual area) and hMT+ (high-order visual area) during the physical and bistable condition. Our results indicate that: (1) hMT+ functional activity correlates with conscious perception during both physical and ambiguous stimuli with similar strength. There is no evidence of differential laminar profiles in hMT+ between the two experimental conditions. (2) Between inducer squares, V1 shows a significantly reduced functional response to the ambiguous stimulus compared to the physical stimulus, as it primarily reflects feedback signals with diminished feedforward input. Distinct V1 laminar profiles differentiate the two experimental conditions. (3) The temporal dynamics of V1 and hMT+ become more similar during the ambiguous condition. (4) V1 exhibits reduced specificity to horizontal and vertical motion perception during the ambiguous condition at the retinotopic locations corresponding to the perceived motion. Our findings demonstrate that during the ambiguous condition, there is a stronger temporal coupling between hMT+ and V1 due to feedback signals from hMT+ to V1. Such feedback to V1 might be contributing to the stabilization of the vivid perception of directed motion at the face of constant ambiguous stimulation.

Indexed as

Feedback, SensoryMotion PerceptionPrimary Visual CortexVisual CortexAdultBrainBrain MappingFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMalePhotic StimulationYoung Adult7TBOLDFeedbackLayer-fMRIMotion perceptionVision

Identifiers

PMID40186769
PMCPMC11972204

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.