ArticleiScience2025
Testing the top-down feedback in the central visual field using the reversed depth illusion.
Article in iScience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Breaking and restoring ocular balance: Temporal interactions in binocular rivalry and stereopsis.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- The superficial layers of the primary visual cortex create a saliency map that feeds forward to the parietal cortex.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Perceptual organization is limited in peripheral vision: Evidence from configural superiority.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Human and artificial visual systems share a computational principle for transforming binocular disparity into depth representation.Communications biology · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a new framework to understand vision, an information bottleneck impoverishes visual input information downstream of the primary visual cortex along the visual pathway; to aid ongoing visual recognition given the bottleneck, feedback from downstream to upstream visual stages queries for additional information. According to the central-peripheral dichotomy theory, this feedback is primarily directed to the central, rather than the peripheral, visual field. Counterintuitively, this theory predicts illusions visible only in the peripheral visual field, which lacks the feedback query to veto the illusions arising from misleading and impoverished feedforward signals. A paradigmatic example is the predicted and confirmed reversed depth illusion in random-dot stereograms. This theory further predicts that disrupting the feedback renders this illusion visible in the central visual field. We test and confirm this prediction using visual backward masking to disrupt the feedback. This feedback privilege for the central visual field underpins visual understanding through analysis-by-synthesis.
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.