ArticleJournal of vision2026
Mask contrast and size do not alter suppression depth in the tracking continuous flash suppression paradigm.
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
Continuous flash suppression (CFS) is a variant of interocular conflict that occurs when one eye views a dynamic high-contrast mask that increases the duration of target suppression. A variant of CFS known as tracking continuous flash suppression (tCFS) was developed, allowing the depth of interocular suppression to be measured. Although previous research has measured how the duration of suppression may be modulated by the contrast and size of the masking stimulus, no study has assessed how mask features impact suppression depth. In our first study, we manipulated mask contrast to measure the consequent impact on suppression depth as measured by the tCFS procedure. We observed that high mask contrast increased the threshold required for a target to break into awareness. Critically, the decrease in contrast required to re-suppress each target was proportionately the same across all conditions so that suppression depth-the ratio of the two thresholds-remained constant. In the second experiment, we manipulated the size of the masking stimulus and found no change in breakthrough/suppression thresholds or suppression depth (i.e., the difference between the thresholds when using log-contrast). These findings clarify that, although changes in mask contrast may alter the threshold to enter awareness, there is no overall change in suppression depth as the changes in breakthrough threshold are reflected by proportionately equivalent changes in suppression threshold. This result matches findings obtained with binocular rivalry showing that suppression depth is constant despite changes in stimulus contrast. Differing levels of mask contrast and size, therefore, can be used by researchers in CFS without altering the strength of suppression, consistent with the perspective that interocular suppression operates in small local spatial zones determined by receptive field size in the primary visual cortex.
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.