Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42647064›Full record

ArticleeLife2026

Perceiving animacy in 'identical' images.

Tal Boger, Chaz Firestone

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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.

Tal BogerJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5476-8416
Chaz FirestoneJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1247-2422

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Some objects appear 'animate' (e.g. dogs and elephants) while others do not (e.g. boots and sofas). This distinction pervades human cognition, with an expansive literature reporting striking effects of animacy on vision, memory, social perception, and neural organization. But studies of perceived animacy face a persistent challenge: Objects that differ in animacy tend to differ in many lower-level visual features (e.g. shape, texture, spatial frequency). Thus, it remains controversial whether animacy per se - as opposed to its lower-level correlates - drives visual processing. Here, we achieve previously unattainable levels of experimental control to demonstrate that the visual system represents animacy itself, beyond its lower-level covariates. We vary animacy while holding nearly all lower-level features constant by exploiting 'visual anagrams' - a diffusion-based technique for generating static images whose interpretations change radically with orientation. Eight pre-registered experiments leverage this approach to demonstrate that representations of animacy structure visual working memory and guide visual attention. Thus, the visual system extracts animacy itself, beyond its lower-level correlates.

Indexed as

Pattern Recognition, VisualVisual PerceptionAttentionHumansMemory, Short-TermPhotic Stimulationanimacyhigh-level visionneurosciencenoneperceptionvisual searchvisual working memory

Identifiers

PMID42647064
PMCPMC13516682

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.