ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2025
Reinterpretation of the rod-and-frame illusion: a virtual reality study.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Treatment-related modulation of visuo-vestibular integration in post-earthquake dizziness syndrome: a longitudinal virtual reality-based study.Journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Age-related directional asymmetry in the rod-and-frame test.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
- Virtual reality-based assessment of visuo-vestibular integration in vestibular migraine and migraine: static and dynamic visual vertical and rod-and-frame tests.Frontiers in neurology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In the Rod-and-Frame Test (RFT), participants align a pivoted rod with the vertical while viewing a tilted, coaxially mounted frame. In doing so, they can use the edge of the frame and its imaginary diagonal as visual cues. Relying on one of these cues leads to the RFT illusion-an error in determining the vertical. We investigated whether individuals who can use both cues perform more accurately at tilt angles, where errors typically peak. Methods: Twenty-one young adults completed a Virtual Reality RFT. A bias function was defined to range from 1 (rod rotated consistently toward the edge cue) to -1 (toward the diagonal cue). We calculated the bias for the tilt angles ±35° (where the diagonal cue is visually salient) and alignment errors at ±15° (where errors are high). Results: The bias and error were strongly correlated ( Conclusions: Reliance on the diagonal cue at large tilt angles (e.g., ±35°) is associated with improved performance at smaller tilt angles (e.g., ±15°). These findings suggest that RFT errors-arising from multisensory integration of visual, vestibular, and proprioceptive inputs-also reflect individual differences in the processing of visual context.
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.