Well said. Love this take.

5/5 So the mystery of mechanism remains, but the take home message is this:

Visual awareness is not just about the integration of stimulus history with stimulus content - visual field location matters as well!

OA paper (Gastrell et al., 2025, Journal of Vision): 🔗 doi.org/10.1167/jov....

4/5 Next, we asked whether differences in fixational stability between foveal and peripheral viewing might drive the effect?

In a 4th Exp., we replicated the original effect *again* (so this really IS a thing!), but spatial differences in fixational stability did not correlate either.

3/5 We now knew this was a low-level (spatially specific) effect, so in Exp. 3 we replicated it, and also probed motion adaptation - a likely mechanism.

We found that adaptation to our unambiguous prime generated stronger motion after effects in the periphery, but didn't predict SFM effect! 🤯

2/5 In Exp. 2 we abolished the effect by moving the stimulus between v.f. locations as it changed from unambiguous to ambiguous motion.

This ruled out a high-level (non-retinotopic) visual explanation whereby the influence of a prime on object-level representations might depend on its precision.

1/5 Using unambiguous → ambiguous SFM sequences, we tested whether priming effects on perception of bistable structure from motion vary between fixation and the periphery.

In Exp. 1 we show that immediate perception of a target is more biased towards primes when sequences are fixated v peripheral.