Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41734207›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Visual reversals and biases while observing ambiguous spinning biological motion and rigid structure-from-motion.

Leo Poom, Wilma Loogna, Edvin Carstensen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. 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

3 authors.

Leo PoomDivision of Perception and Cognition, Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7065-4662
Wilma LoognaDivision of Perception and Cognition, Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Edvin CarstensenDivision of Perception and Cognition, Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We examined perceived reversal rates and biases as observers viewed four ambiguous, motion-defined depth asymmetric point-light stimuli: a biological motion stimulus in the form of a spinning point-light walker (PLW), a rigidly spinning human figure, a spinning half-cylinder, and a wobbling slanted cylinder. The last three are rigid structure-from-motion (SFM) stimuli. We analysed angular reversal distributions to assess perceptual biases: facing-the-viewer (FTV), convexity, and depth-symmetry biases. The PLW showed the highest reversal rate and a strong FTV bias, though responses were bimodal, some observers experienced reversals every half-turn, others rarely. The rigid human figure showed a weak FTV bias. The spinning half-cylinder resulted in an initial convexity bias, but the occurrence of reversals following the initial percept instead revealed a novel "edge-in-front" bias. The wobbling cylinder showed no angular bias, and had the fewest reversals, likely due to persistent depth asymmetry throughout its motion, and/or that the wobbling prevent adaptation-recovery cycles of neural populations tuned to opposite spinning directions. Correlation analyses revealed shared mechanisms among spinning stimuli, but not with the wobbling cylinder. These findings highlight how shape and motion jointly influence perceptual reversals, refining models of bistable perception and individual variability.

Indexed as

Motion PerceptionHumansMotionPhotic Stimulation

Identifiers

PMID41734207
PMCPMC12931747

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.