ArticleScientific reports2025
A reevaluation of the visual phantom illusion and its impact on the motion aftereffect.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The constructive nature of motion perception has been highlighted in studies of the visual phantom illusion. Visual phantoms can occur when two low-contrast collinear drifting gratings are separated by a blank gap, leading to the ghostly impression of drifting stripes that extend through the gap. Although previous work has shown that phantom-inducing gratings can elicit a motion aftereffect (MAE) in the gap region, it is not known whether these MAEs arise from the perception of visual phantoms per se. Here, we evaluated the strength of MAEs elicited by phantom-inducing gratings and well-matched control stimuli. Either the darkest portion of the inducer gratings matched the background luminance to elicit more vivid phantoms or the mean luminance of the inducers matched the background as a control. Both phantom and control inducers predominantly evoked impressions of opposite-direction motion, but the dynamic MAE proved somewhat stronger for phantom than control inducers. Also, MAEs were more strongly modulated by the physical contrast of the control inducers and less influenced by the contrast of the phantom inducers. These findings suggest that low-level motion adaptation strongly contributes to the MAEs elicited in the gap region but that the magnitude of adaptation is further modulated by phantom 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.