ArticleJournal of vision2026
Frame effects across space and time.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When two probes are flashed at different times within a moving frame, they can be perceived as dramatically separated from each other even though they are at the same location in the display. This effect suggests that we perceive object position relative to the surrounding frame even when it is moving (Özkan et al., 2021). Here, eight experiments reveal new properties of this frame effect. First, the influence of the frame on the perceived probe positions extends beyond its bounding contours by several degrees of visual angle, both in the direction of the frame's motion and orthogonal to it. It is also undiminished when the probes and the frame are in different depth planes. However, the influence of the frame's motion shows no extension in time-there is no effect on probes presented after the frame is removed and none retroactively before the frame appears either. The frame effect is also driven primarily by the displacement of the frame, not by its motion signals: the effect is stronger for moving bounded frames compared with moving unbounded random dot textures. When the bounded region has an internal texture that moves with or against the frame's motion or remains static, it is the displacement of the frame that produces the perceived position shifts of the probes, and the effect of the internal motion is mostly suppressed. The frame's influence is unaffected by whether the motion is self-initiated or not and does not diminish in strength across 2 hours of testing.
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.