ArticleJournal of vision2026
Distinct roles of central and peripheral vision in rapid scene understanding.
Article in Journal of vision, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Central and peripheral vision loss, caused by conditions such as age-related macular degeneration and retinitis pigmentosa, disrupt visual processing in distinct ways, yet their impact on real-world scene perception remains poorly understood. Here, we used a real-time, gaze-contingent simulation to examine how central vision loss and peripheral vision loss alter eye movements and scene understanding. Sighted participants (n = 32, five males) viewed 120 real-world scenes (50% social interaction, 50% neutral) under one- or three-saccade constraints and described each scene; description quality was quantified via semantic similarity to ground-truth responses. Peripheral vision loss observers produced significantly less informative descriptions than both central vision loss and control participants, particularly for social interaction scenes, suggesting that peripheral vision is critical for rapid extraction of scene semantics. In contrast, central vision loss primarily disrupted oculomotor behavior, including increased saccade amplitudes, delayed saccade initiation, and reduced intersubject fixation consistency. Description quality was not predicted by fixation similarity to controls but by fixations to labeled humans and critical objects, underscoring the role of semantically informative sampling for real-world scenes that include people. These results reveal a dissociation between perceptual and oculomotor consequences of vision loss and highlight the importance of peripheral input for real-world scene understanding.
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.