ArticleJournal of vision2026
Low confidence for perceptual completion of partially occluded objects.
Article in Journal of vision, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pervasive gaps in sensory information are completed in perception. Interestingly, humans are unaware of that perceptual completion in cases of proximal gaps, which are caused by properties of their own sensory system, and report high confidence for the inferred information in those gaps. Here, we investigated whether such overconfidence is also observed in perceptual completion of visual information in distal gaps (i.e., those caused by the properties of the stimulus). In three experiments, we asked participants to perform a perceptual (type 1) task and report their confidence (type 2 task) using stimuli that were either intact (full stimulus), with a partial cutout (stimulus with gap), partially occluded (amodal completion) or induced (modal completion). We examined whether participants report high confidence for amodal and modal completion in comparison to a full stimulus or stimulus with gap. Over three experiments, participants had the highest confidence for full stimuli, whereas amodal and modal completion led to comparable confidence as stimuli with gap. These findings demonstrate that there was low confidence for stimuli whose distal gaps are perceptually filled in. In combination with previous research, our results suggest that visibility of the gaps in information influences confidence judgments.
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.