Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41986673›Full record

ArticleCommunications psychology2026

Perceptual rhythms by phase-aligned perceptual performance peaks across trials.

Tobias Schoeberl, Stefan Treue

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

2 authors.

Tobias SchoeberlGerman Primate Center, Leibniz Institute for Primate Research, Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, Göttingen, Germany. TSchoeberl@dpz.eu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-7051-9275
Stefan TreueGerman Primate Center, Leibniz Institute for Primate Research, Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-8938-5810

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) project number 436260547
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Perceptual processing may rhythmically alternate. There is a line of evidence from dense sampling psychophysics supporting this claim: In such studies, performance in visual target detection or discrimination is repeatedly tested at various fine-grained time intervals relative to a reference event. This reference event is presented at the beginning of each trial, and it is thought to reset some internal oscillation. Performance time courses following the reset often show rhythmic oscillations in the sub-second range. The interpretation has been that several quickly alternating peaks and troughs of perceptual efficiency exist. Here, we propose an alternative. Instead of being rhythmic, the perceptual processing efficiency time course might exhibit only a single peak in each trial. If the temporal location of this peak is constrained to co-occur with one of the peaks of the internal continuing oscillation, rhythmicity in overall performance time courses can be explained when performance is computed across many trials. Applying this perspective to three published datasets (N = 44, N = 34, N = 11) and running simulations, we confirm the possible existence of such phase-aligned peaks in perceptual efficiency. We show that foreperiod priming (behavioural advantage of repeating the same time interval between reference and target from one trial to the next) alternates across time. This is predicted if peaks in perceptual efficiency are consistently allocated to those time intervals that coincide with a peak in the underlying oscillation. Priming therefore works best at these intervals, which coincide with a peak in the underlying oscillation.

Identifiers

PMID41986673
PMCPMC13195158

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.