ArticleScientific reports2025
Eye movements do not preferentially test inferences in the blind spot.
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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Humans make eye movements to regions of high uncertainty to maximize the information gain in their visual search. Along with veridical sensory information, there is also perceptually inferred information that arises at the gaps caused by anatomical or environmental factors. It is unclear how those inferences are treated in comparison to veridical information during search behavior. Here, in two experiments, we tested if eye movements are preferentially directed towards the blind spot as an area of high uncertainty and high information gain in a monocular visual search task. The results show that the first saccade was not directed primarily to the blind spot when "invisible" targets in the left and right blind spot occured interleaved. Only when viewing conditions were blocked, such that "invisible" targets occured always in the same blind spot side, participants learned to look preferentially at the blind spot. These results show that perceptual inferences in the blind spot are not preferentially tested by eye movements in general, but that they can be optimized by using contextual information.
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.