Visual imagery vividness correlates with afterimage conscious perception.

Afterimages are illusory, visual conscious perceptions. A widely accepted theory is that afterimages are caused by retinal signaling that continues after the physical disappearance of a light stimulus. However, afterimages have been reported without preceding visual, sensory stimulation (e.g., conditioned afterimages and afterimages induced by illusory vision). These observations suggest the role of top-down, brain mechanisms in afterimage conscious perception. Therefore, some afterimages may share perceptual features with sensory-independent conscious perceptions (e.g., imagery, hallucinations, and dreams) that occur without bottom-up, sensory input. In the current investigation, we tested for a link between the vividness of visual imagery and afterimage conscious perception. Participants reported their vividness of visual imagery and perceived sharpness, contrast, and duration of negative afterimages. The afterimage perceptual features were acquired using perception matching paradigms that were validated on image stimuli. Relating these perceptual reports revealed that the vividness of visual imagery positively correlated with afterimage contrast and sharpness. These behavioral results support shared neural mechanisms between visual imagery and afterimages. This study encourages future research combining neurophysiology recording methods and afterimage paradigms to directly examine the neural mechanisms of afterimage conscious perception.

The art and science of using quality control to understand and improve fMRI data.

Designing and executing a good quality control (QC) process is vital to robust and reproducible science and is often taught through hands on training. As FMRI research trends toward studies with larger sample sizes and highly automated processing pipelines, the people who analyze data are often distinct from those who collect and preprocess the data. While there are good reasons for this trend, it also means that important information about how data were acquired, and their quality, may be missed by those working at later stages of these workflows. Similarly, an abundance of publicly available datasets, where people (not always correctly) assume others already validated data quality, makes it easier for trainees to advance in the field without learning how to identify problematic data. This manuscript is designed as an introduction for researchers who are already familiar with fMRI, but who did not get hands on QC training or who want to think more deeply about QC. This could be someone who has analyzed fMRI data but is planning to personally acquire data for the first time, or someone who regularly uses openly shared data and wants to learn how to better assess data quality. We describe why good QC processes are important, explain key priorities and steps for fMRI QC, and as part of the FMRI Open QC Project, we demonstrate some of these steps by using AFNI software and AFNI's QC reports on an openly shared dataset. A good QC process is context dependent and should address whether data have the potential to answer a scientific question, whether any variation in the data has the potential to skew or hide key results, and whether any problems can potentially be addressed through changes in acquisition or data processing. Automated metrics are essential and can often highlight a possible problem, but human interpretation at every stage of a study is vital for understanding causes and potential solutions.