ArticlePloS one2026
Rapid invisible frequency tagging (RIFT) does not evoke intermodulation components in the neural response.
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.
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
The human visual system performs nonlinear integrative operations at multiple stages of visual information processing. For instance, integrating parts of visual stimuli into a coherent object involves coordinated neural processing along the visual hierarchy. However, it remains uncertain whether visual integration manifests in a nonlinear neural response, particularly through intermodulation components in the power spectrum. In this study, we used a visual motion paradigm combined with rapid invisible frequency tagging (RIFT) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) to explore nonlinear characteristics of neural responses associated with visual integration. In this paradigm, two grating patches were moving coherently or incoherently, and were modulated by RIFT at 56 and 63 Hz, respectively. The behavioural results revealed that the participants responded more accurately and faster to probes during coherent compared to incoherent motion. Moreover, the type of motion elicited differential effects on pupil dilation, with significantly larger pupil diameter observed during incoherent motion. To evaluate the neural response to coherent and incoherent motion stimuli, we assessed spectral coherence between MEG and RIFT. We observed a strong coherence at the tagging frequencies (f1 = 56 and f2 = 63 Hz) as well as at the higher harmonics at 112 Hz and 126 Hz, respectively. Importantly we did not observe a response at frequencies of the intermodulation (f2-f1, f2 + f1); nor did we observe a difference when comparing the coherence and incoherent motion. We conclude that in contrast to studies with low-frequency visible tagging, RIFT does not evoke intermodulation components and therefore, its applicability for investigating the neural mechanisms of visual integration might be limited.
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.