ArticleScientific reports2025
The effects of spatial relations and motion information in social scene perception.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A body of research shows that the human visual system hosts a network specialized in processing social interactions-i.e., physical/communicative exchanges between people. This network largely overlaps with regions involved in motion perception. Current views propose that, since motion is an intrinsic component of social interaction, it is necessary to trigger social-interaction selectivity. However, the relationship between social-interaction perception and motion perception remains unclear. We took advantage of two existing functional MRI datasets collected in the same participants, to identify the social-interaction network, and study how it responds to static versus dynamic visual social scenes. Results showed that scenes showing interacting face-to-face (vs. back-to-back) people elicited greater activity in the extrastriate body area (EBA) and posterior superior temporal sulcus (pSTS). This facingness effect was observed for both static and dynamic stimuli, indicating that motion is not required to trigger social-interaction selectivity. However, neural activity was stronger for dynamic (vs. static) stimuli, implying that motion enhances the network's responsiveness. Moreover, the facingness effect was stronger in left hemisphere areas. Thus, while social perception has traditionally been associated with the right hemisphere, the present findings highlight a critical role for left visual areas, raising new questions about their function in social perception.
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.