Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42162386›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2026

Preserved discrimination sensitivity to looming trajectories across parafoveal and peripheral vision.

Junzhen Guo, Runjia Mao, Runlu Sun, Yingying Wang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 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

4 authors.

Junzhen GuoDepartment of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Runjia MaoDepartment of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Runlu SunDepartment of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Yingying WangDepartment of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. ywang15@zju.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6378-6707

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Detailed perceptual discrimination is suggested to be inferior in peripheral vision, with sensitivity declining continuously as retinal eccentricity increases. Yet most ecologically relevant events, including imminent threats, are first signaled in the periphery, raising the possibility that peripheral capabilities for threat processing have been underestimated. Here, we tested whether peripheral vision preserves discrimination sensitivity to the trajectories of looming stimuli-visual patterns simulating collision-which are known to engage rapid subcortical visual pathways with large receptive fields. Across five psychophysical experiments in desktop and virtual reality (VR) settings, we consistently found that discrimination sensitivity for looming stimuli remained stable from parafoveal to near-peripheral eccentricities (2° to 14.5°) and declined only at the far periphery (30°). In contrast, physically matched receding stimuli showed typical eccentricity-dependent decline, ruling out general motion sensitivity as the source of preserved performance. Pupil responses further supported the affective salience of looming stimuli. These findings suggest that peripheral vision may be selectively optimized for detecting biologically relevant threats via subcortical mechanisms, challenging the traditional fovea-centered view of visual discrimination.

Indexed as

Discrimination, PsychologicalMotion PerceptionVisual FieldsVisual PerceptionAdultFemaleFovea CentralisHumansMaleYoung AdultLoomingParafoveaPeripheral visionPsychometric function

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.