ArticleThe European journal of neuroscience2026
The Brain Response to Reflectional Symmetry Is Not Uniquely Preattentive.
Article in The European journal of neuroscience, 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.
- The Brain Response to Reflectional Symmetry Is Not Uniquely Preattentive.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
EEG can be used to measure the brain response to visual regularity. Reflectional symmetry generates an event-related potential (ERP) named the sustained posterior negativity (SPN). The SPN for reflectional symmetry is generated automatically, whatever the participant's task. This may be because reflectional symmetry has a fundamental role in perceptual organization and guiding adaptive behaviour. In contrast, other types of regularity, such as glass patterns, do not have this ecological significance. We thus predicted that the glass pattern SPN would be more susceptible to experimental variations of task than the reflection SPN. To test this prediction, we ran three experiments on three different groups of 52 participants. All participants saw the same random, reflection and glass dot dipole stimuli. The stimuli were either black or white. In the Regularity Task, participants discriminated whether the patterns were random or regular (where regular means reflection or glass). In the Luminance task, participants discriminated whether the patterns were black or white. In the Cross task, participants discriminated whether the vertical or horizontal arm of the central fixation cross was longer. As predicted, both the reflection and glass SPN were largest in the Regularity task, reduced in the Luminance task and reduced again in the Cross task. Contrary to predictions, glass pattern SPNs were less affected by task than reflection SPNs. This unexpected result suggests that glass patterns may even be processed more automatically than reflection, although this would require replication before it is treated as secure knowledge.
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.