Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41143481›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2025

Local motion governs visibility and suppression of biological motion in continuous flash suppression.

William Swann, Matthew Davidson, Gabriel Clouston, David Alais

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

William SwannUniversity of Sydney, School of Psychology, Sydney, Australia.
Matthew DavidsonUniversity of Technology Sydney, Faculty of Health, Sydney, Australia.
Gabriel CloustonUniversity of Sydney, School of Psychology, Sydney, Australia.
David AlaisUniversity of Sydney, School of Psychology, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Presenting unique visual stimuli to each eye induces a dynamic perceptual state where only one image is perceived at a time, and the other is suppressed from awareness. This phenomenon, known as interocular suppression, has allowed researchers to probe the dynamics of visual awareness and unconscious processing in the visual system. A key result is that different categories of visual stimuli may not be suppressed equally, but there is still a wide debate as to whether low- or high-level visual features modulate interocular suppression. Here we quantify and compare the strength of suppression for various motion stimuli in comparison to biological motion stimuli that are rich in high-level semantic information. We employ the tracking continuous flash suppression method, which recently demonstrated uniform suppression depth for a variety of static images that varied in semantic content. The accumulative findings of our three experiments outline that suppression depth is varied not by the strength of the suppressor alone but with different low-level visual motion features, in contrast to the uniform suppression depth previously shown for static images. Notably, disrupting high-level semantic information via the inversion or rotation of biological motion did not alter suppression depth. Ultimately, our data support the dependency of suppression depth on local motion information, further supporting the low-level local-precedence hypothesis of interocular suppression.

Indexed as

Motion PerceptionVision, BinocularAdultAwarenessFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41143481
PMCPMC12582193

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.