Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41949397›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2026

Spatial suppression of motion and motion segmentation in peripheral vision.

Pooja Nandagopal, Allison M McKendrick, Andrew J Anderson

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

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.

Pooja NandagopalDepartment of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Allison M McKendrickLions Eye Institute, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia.
Andrew J AndersonDepartment of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study examined motion segmentation and spatial suppression of motion in central versus peripheral vision, their relationship, and whether scaling peripheral stimuli to match larger middle temporal receptive fields reduces eccentricity effects. Ten adults (mean 27.5 years) completed motion segmentation and motion discrimination tasks across five contrast levels (12%-92%), three eccentricities (0°, 10°, 20°), and two stimulus conditions (scaled, unscaled). In the segmentation task, participants identified the tilt of a motion-defined ellipse within an oppositely moving background; segmentation thresholds were minimum stimulus exposure duration required for accurate tilt discrimination. Participants also judged motion direction of the ellipse in isolation. Segmentation efficiency was the log10 threshold difference between ellipse motion and segmentation thresholds. The motion discrimination task involved identifying the motion direction of the moving background patch in isolation, with a suppression index calculated as the log10 threshold difference between highest and lowest contrasts. In the unscaled condition, eccentricity reduced segmentation efficiency (p < 0.01) and suppression index (p = 0.003), with a significant interaction among suppression, segmentation, and eccentricity (p < 0.001). Correlations between segmentation efficiency and suppression index weakened with eccentricity (Pearson's r = 0.81, p = 0.003 at 0°, r = 0.69, p = 0.26 at 10°, r = 0.48, p = 0.16). Scaling improved segmentation efficiency (p = 0.003) and suppression index (p = 0.043) but did not remove eccentricity effects. Thus our ability to segment moving foreground objects declines with eccentricity, even when accounting for receptive field scaling.

Indexed as

Motion PerceptionSpace PerceptionVisual FieldsAdultContrast SensitivityDiscrimination, PsychologicalFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationSensory ThresholdsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41949397
PMCPMC13069350

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.