ArticleJournal of vision2025
Dynamics of vision: Grouping takes longer than crowding.
Article in Journal of vision, 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.
- Temporal windows of perceptual organization: Evidence from crowding and uncrowding.Journal of vision · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vision is often understood as a hierarchical, feedforward process, where visual processing proceeds from low-level features to high-level representations. Within tens of milliseconds, the fundamental features of the percept are established. Traditional models use this framework to explain visual crowding, where nearby elements impair target perception with minimal influence from stimulus duration. Here, we show that, at least for more complex displays, crowding involves highly dynamic processes. We determined vernier offset discrimination thresholds for different flanker configurations. In Experiment 1, for a 160-ms stimulus duration, crowding was lower for flanking Cubes/Rectangles compared to Lines, pointing toward underlying grouping processes. However, strong crowding occurred in all conditions at 20 ms, showing that grouping requires a minimum stimulus duration to occur. In Experiment 2, the crowded vernier (20 ms) was preceded by a 20-ms Cubes display. This brief preview led to uncrowding of the subsequently presented flanked vernier, but only for flankers that ungroup for longer durations (i.e., Cubes). This uncrowding effect occurred for time spans up to 1 s (Experiment 3) but could be interrupted by elements presented between the preview and the flanked vernier (Experiment 4). Our findings are well predicted by the LAMINART model, which employs recurrent segmentation processes unfolding over time to separate objects into distinct representation layers. Taken together, our novel preview effect highlights the importance of spatiotemporal grouping in crowding. In contrast to classic feedforward models, we propose that crowding is a dynamic process where multiple interpretations are modulated and gated by grouping mechanisms evolving over time.
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.