Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41251535›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2025

Distinct temporal dynamics of judging scene-relative object motion and estimating heading from optic flow.

Mingyang Xie, Li Li

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. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Mingyang XieShanghai Key Laboratory of Brain Functional Genomics, School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China.
Li LiShanghai Key Laboratory of Brain Functional Genomics, School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During self-movement, the visual system can identify scene-relative object motion via flow parsing and estimate the direction of self-movement (heading) from optic flow. However, the temporal dynamics of these two processes have not been examined and compared using matched displays. In this study, we examined how the accuracy of flow parsing and heading estimation changed with stimulus duration. Participants viewed a stereo optic flow display simulating forward translational self-movement through a cloud composed of wireframe objects with stimulus durations at 100, 200, 400, 700, and 1000 ms. In Experiment 1, a yellow dot probe moved vertically for 100 ms in the scene near the end of the trial. A nulling motion component was added through an adaptive staircase to the probe's image motion to determine when the probe was perceived to move vertically in the scene, which was then used to compute the accuracy of flow parsing. In Experiment 2, participants viewed the same optic flow display without the moving probe object. The simulated heading was randomly varied in each trial, and participants were asked to estimate heading at the end of the trial. As stimulus duration increased, the accuracy of flow parsing decreased, whereas the accuracy of heading estimation increased. These contrasting temporal dynamics suggest that despite both processes relying on optic flow, flow parsing and heading estimation involve distinct processing mechanisms with different temporal characteristics. This divergence, together with previous neurophysiological findings, led us to propose two potential neural mechanisms subserving these two processes to inspire future research.

Indexed as

JudgmentMotion PerceptionOptic FlowAdultFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationTime FactorsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41251535
PMCPMC12636965

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.