ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2025
Distinct detection and discrimination sensitivities in visual processing of real versus unreal optic flow.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We examined the intricate mechanisms underlying visual processing of complex motion stimuli by measuring the detection sensitivity to contraction and expansion patterns and the discrimination sensitivity to the location of the center of motion (CoM) in various real and unreal optic flow stimuli. We conducted two experiments (N = 20 each) and compared responses to both "real" optic flow stimuli containing information about self-movement in a three-dimensional scene and "unreal" optic flow stimuli lacking such information. We found that detection sensitivity to contraction surpassed that to expansion patterns for unreal optic flow stimuli, whereas this trend was reversed for real optic flow stimuli. Furthermore, while discrimination sensitivity to the CoM location was not affected by stimulus duration for unreal optic flow stimuli, it showed a significant improvement when stimulus duration increased from 100 to 400 ms for real optic flow stimuli. These findings provide compelling evidence that the visual system employs distinct processing approaches for real versus unreal optic flow even when they are perfectly matched for two-dimensional global features and local motion signals. These differences reveal influences of self-movement in natural environments, enabling the visual system to uniquely process stimuli with significant survival implications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39810018What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.