ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2026
Retention interval modulates motion-history biases in visual motion perception.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Serial dependence, the tendency for recent perceptual history to bias current judgments, has been proposed as a mechanism supporting perceptual stability, although its cognitive origin remains debated. We investigated serial dependence in motion direction estimation using random-dot kinematograms (RDKs). Participants reported perceived motion direction after delays of 0, 1, 3, or 6 s following stimulus offset. Trial-level linear mixed-effects modelling revealed a significant serial dependence effect and a significant interaction with delay, indicating that the magnitude of the DoG-based history effect varied across retention intervals. Contrary to accounts predicting immediate repulsion and delayed attraction, the parametric DoG analysis yielded positive peak estimates at all delays, including the nominal 0-s condition, in which no additional retention interval followed stimulus offset. However, a complementary folded-bias analysis indicated that this parametric attractive component was not uniformly expressed across angular distances but was strongest at small-to-intermediate current-minus-previous angular differences and coexisted with local repulsive deflections. These findings do not support a simple dissociation between immediate sensory repulsion and delayed mnemonic attraction. Instead, they suggest that recent motion history already influences current reports in the immediate-report condition, although this condition should not be interpreted as isolating a purely perceptual stage. Retention interval then modulated the strength and expression of this influence. Exploratory analyses further suggested that motion judgments may be influenced not only by the exact previous direction but also by the broader motion axis, whereas response-time analyses did not reveal a simple overall dependence on trial-to-trial angular similarity. OPEN PRACTICES STATEMENT: The raw data, analysis code, and MATLAB/Psychtoolbox experiment task code for this study are publicly available on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/9ea8p/ . The study was not preregistered.
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.