Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40590784›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2025

Variations in sensory eye dominance along the horizontal meridian.

Chris L E Paffen

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. 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.

Chris L E PaffenHelmholtz Institute & Experimental Psychology, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sensory eye dominance refers to the dominance of one eye's input over the other during interocular conflict, such that, when discrepant images are presented dichoptically, one eye's image will dominate perception. This study focuses on how sensory eye dominance varies across visual space. Although some characteristics of variations in sensory eye dominance across visual space have been described before, results so far are largely conflicting. Here I argue that this conflict is caused by the fact that different studies used different methods to assess sensory eye dominance, combined with using a wide range of eccentricities. To systematically and continuously describe sensory eye dominance across the visual field, I used a novel method-tracking Continuous Flash Suppression-in which a visual target presented to a single eye moved across the horizontal meridian while being in constant competition with a dynamic mask presented to the other eye. Eye dominance across the visual field could be described and quantified using three factors: (1) a generic preference for the nasal visual field in combination with (2) an observer-dependent general bias for using the left, right, or neither eye. On top of these, some observers had (3) idiosyncratic biases in local sensory eye dominance. I argue that, while idiosynchratic local biases within an observer probably stem from optical, retinal, or cortical imbalances, the observed nasal advantage is functional: it allows to bias the interocular competition to fixated, partly occluded distant objects of interest.

Indexed as

Dominance, OcularMeridiansVision, BinocularVisual FieldsAdultFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40590784
PMCPMC12227019

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.