ArticleCommunications psychology2026
Determinants of visual ambiguity resolution.
Article in Communications psychology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Visual inputs during natural perception are highly ambiguous: objects are frequently occluded, lighting conditions vary, and object identification depends significantly on prior experiences. However, why do certain images remain unidentifiable while others can be recognized immediately, and what visual features drive subjective clarification? To address these critical questions, we developed a unique dataset of 1854 ambiguous images and collected more than 100,000 ratings (from a total of 947 participants) evaluating their identifiability before and after seeing undistorted versions of the images. Relating the representations of a brain-inspired neural network model in response to our images with human ratings, we show that subjective identification depends largely on the extent to which higher-level visual features from the original images are preserved in their ambiguous counterparts. In line with these results, an image-level regression analysis showed that the subjective identification of ambiguous images was best explained by high-level visual dimensions. Notably, the predominance of higher-level features over lower-level ones softens after participants disambiguate the images, suggesting that the visual system flexibly shifts between top-down guessing to bottom-up matching after disambiguation. Moreover, we found that the process of ambiguity resolution was accompanied by a notable decrease in semantic distance and a greater consistency in object naming among participants. However, the relationship between information gained after disambiguation and subjective identification was non-linear, indicating that acquiring more information does not necessarily enhance subjective clarity. Instead, we observed a U-shaped relationship, suggesting that subjective identification improves when the acquired information either strongly matches or mismatches prior predictions. Collectively, these findings advance our understanding on how we resolve ambiguity and extract meaning from incomplete visual information.
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.