Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40874113›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2025

Reinterpretation of the rod-and-frame illusion: a virtual reality study.

Michał Adamski, Miroslaw Latka

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

2 authors.

Michał AdamskiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Wroclaw, Poland.
Miroslaw LatkaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Wroclaw, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

multisensory integrationRod-and-Frame Testsensory reweightingvirtual realityvisual field dependence

Identifiers

PMID40874113
PMCPMC12379729

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.