Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40265393›Full record

ReviewVision (Basel, Switzerland)2025

μετὰ τὰ ϕυσικά: Vision Far Beyond Physics.

Liliana Albertazzi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Vision (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Liliana AlbertazziRetired from Trento University. Current address: Via Ca' La Selva, 4, 47855 Gemmano (RN), Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4797-0760

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vision Science is an area of study that focuses on specific aspects of visual perception and is conducted mainly in the restricted and controlled context of laboratories. In so doing, the methodological procedures adopted necessarily reduce the variables of natural perception. For the time being, it is extremely difficult to perform psychophysical, neurophysiological, and phenomenological experiments in open scenery, even if that is our natural visual experience. This study discusses four points whose status in Vision Science is still controversial. Namely, the copresence of distinct visual phenomena of primary and secondary processes in natural vision; the role of visual imagination in seeing; the factors ruling the perception of global ambiguity and enigmatic and emotional atmosphere in the visual experience of a scene; and if the phenomena of subjective vision are considered, what kind of new laboratories are available for studying visual perception in open scenery. In the framework of experimental phenomenology and the use of pictorial art as a complement and test for perceptual phenomena, a case study from painting showing the copresence of perceptual and mental visual processes is also discussed and analyzed. This has involved measuring color and light in specific zones of the painting chosen for analysis, relative to visual templates, using Natural Color System notation cards.

Indexed as

appearancesDe Chiricoexperimental phenomenologyimaginationmetaphysical paintingpast experiencepictorial artvirtual realityvisual thinking

Identifiers

PMID40265393
PMCPMC12015877

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.