Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39786734›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2025

Attractive and repulsive visual aftereffects depend on stimulus contrast.

Nikos Gekas, Pascal Mamassian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Nikos GekasDepartment of Psychology, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK.
Pascal MamassianLaboratoire des Systèmes Perceptifs, Département d'études cognitives, École normale supérieure, PSL University, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual perception has been described as a dynamic process where incoming visual information is combined with what has been seen before to form the current percept. Such a process can result in multiple visual aftereffects that can be attractive toward or repulsive away from past visual stimulation. A lot of research has been conducted on what functional role the mechanisms that produce these aftereffects may play. However, there is a lack of understanding of the role of stimulus uncertainty on these aftereffects. In this study, we investigate how the contrast of a stimulus affects the serial aftereffects it induces and how the stimulus itself is affected by these effects depending on its contrast. We presented human observers with a series of Gabor patches and monitored how the perceived orientation of stimuli changed over time with the systematic manipulation of orientation and contrast of presented stimuli. We hypothesized that repulsive serial effects would be stronger for the judgment of high-contrast than low-contrast stimuli, but the other way around for attractive serial effects. Our experimental findings confirm such a strong interaction between contrast and sign of aftereffects. We present a Bayesian model observer that can explain this interaction based on two principles, the dynamic changes of orientation-tuned channels in short timescales and the slow integration of prior information over long timescales. Our findings have strong implications for our understanding of orientation perception and can inspire further work on the identification of its neural mechanisms.

Indexed as

Contrast SensitivityFigural AftereffectPhotic StimulationAdultBayes TheoremFemaleHumansMaleOrientationOrientation, SpatialVisual PerceptionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39786734
PMCPMC11725992

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.