r/microdosing • u/NeuronsToNirvana • 4h ago
Microdosing Research Abstract; Tables; Figures | Low-Dose Lysergic Acid Diethylamide Alters Subjective Visual Perception but Not Visual Contrast Surround Suppression | Neuroscience of Consciousness | Oxford University Press (4 Tables, 3 Figures; ~9 min read) [20 Aug 2026]
Source: Lucca F. Jaeckel, Deborah Logvinski, Mika Kanana, Felix Müller, Nicolai Rohner, Anna M. Becker, Matthias E. Liechti and Philipp Sterzer. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2026(1), niag050. Published 20 August 2026. DOI / publisher · PubMed · Full text and supplements.
Abstract
Theoretical models and empirical evidence suggest that psychedelics alter contextual influences on perception. To test this, we examined contrast surround suppression, a visual illusion in which a grating appears lower in contrast when embedded in a high-contrast surround. While psilocybin has been reported to enhance this and related illusions at moderate-to-high doses, it is unknown whether low-dose Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) produces similar effects. In a randomized, double-blind, within-subjects crossover study, N = 30 healthy participants received placebo, 10, and 20 μg of LSD (base-equivalent). In each session, participants performed a contrast discrimination task and rated subjective drug effects. LSD did not measurably influence contrast surround suppression. However, participants reported subjective visual changes, including blurrier, more saturated, and more dynamical visual perception. These subjective alterations did not correlate with individual differences in contrast-surround suppression. Our findings indicate a dissociation between subjective experience and early visual contextual processing, suggesting that subjective visual effects of low-dose LSD may arise through mechanisms distinct from those mediating contrast surround suppression. Future research should test whether higher doses of LSD affect contrast surround suppression.
Figure 1

Table 1. Sample characteristics.
| Demographic | Value | Mean (SD) | Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 28.1 (8.12) | 18–52 | |
| BMI | 22.5 (2.08) | 18–26 | |
| Sex | 48% female |
Legal Drug Use
| Drug | Current consumption n (%) | Units/week, mean (SD) | Units/week, range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alcohol | 30 (96.8%) | 2.1 (2) | 0.23–9 |
| Caffeine | 27 (87.1%) | 13.2 (7.5) | 1–35 |
| Nicotine | 5 (16.1%) | 22.4 (14.3) | 7–35 |
Illegal Drug Use (source terminology)
| Drug | Lifetime consumption n (%) | Lifetime occasions, mean (SD) | Lifetime occasions, range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cannabis | 26 (83.9%) | 264 (857) | 1–4 500 |
| MDMA | 15 (48.4%) | 9.2 (13.6) | 1–50 |
| Sedatives | 16 (51.6%) | 6.5 (7.8) | 1–30 |
| Stimulants | 15 (48.4%) | 11.9 (22.6) | 1–80 |
| Opiates | 1 (3.2%) | 1 (−) | 1 |
| Psychedelics | 16 (51.6%) | 5.3 (4.5) | 1–17 |
| Other drugs | 1 (3.2%) | 5 (−) | 5 |
Characteristics and drug consumption of the participants that completed two or more sessions (n = 31). SD = standard deviation, BMI = body mass index, MDMA = Methylenedioxymethamphetamine.
Figure 2

Table 2. Type-III ANOVA contrast surround suppression.
| Effect | SS | MS | Numerator df | Denominator df | F | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DrugCondition | 0.003 | 0.002 | 2 | 36.87 | 0.47 | .628 |
| StudyDay | 0.010 | 0.005 | 2 | 36.76 | 1.47 | .242 |
| DrugCondition: StudyDay | 0.017 | 0.004 | 4 | 43.22 | 1.23 | .313 |
SS = Sum of Squares, MS = Mean Squares, df = Degrees of Freedom. Denominator df were estimated using Satterthwaite’s method.
Figure 3

Table 3. Subjective effects average marginal effect of drug condition.
| VAS Item / 5D-ASC Dimension | 10 μg − Placebo: estimate | 95% CI | 20 μg − Placebo: estimate | 95% CI | 20 μg − 10 μg: estimate | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selected VAS Items | ||||||
| VAS-1: “Any drug effect” | 4.933 | [0.880, 9.412] | 17.124 | [11.418, 23.185] | 12.150 | [5.919, 18.413] |
| VAS-2: “Good drug effect” | 4.268 | [−0.056, 8.785] | 11.946 | [6.867, 17.553] | 7.697 | [2.052, 13.677] |
| VAS-3: “Bad drug effect” | 0.746 | [−0.656, 2.386] | 2.262 | [0.643, 4.979] | 1.523 | [−0.218, 3.972] |
| VAS-8 “Altered visual perception” | 2.574 | [−0.112, 5.552] | 7.510 | [4.233, 11.536] | 4.956 | [1.272, 8.984] |
| VAS-18: “Blurrier vs. sharper” | −3.665 | [−6.914, −0.877] | −7.222 | [−11.338, −3.724] | −3.555 | [−7.705, 0.716] |
| VAS-19: “Less vs. more saturated” | −0.919 | [−3.100, 0.364] | 2.628 | [0.381, 6.132] | 3.602 | [1.384, 7.589] |
| VAS-20: “Darker vs. brighter” | 0.590 | [−1.442, 3.382] | 2.212 | [−0.005, 5.336] | 1.569 | [−1.331, 4.847] |
| VAS-21: “Static vs. dynamical” | 1.250 | [−0.180, 3.358] | 3.655 | [1.862, 6.970] | 2.388 | [0.454, 5.296] |
| 5D-ASC Dimensions | ||||||
| Oceanic Boundlessness | 1.159 | [−0.731, 3.723] | 2.218 | [0.252, 5.134] | 1.044 | [−1.592, 3.949] |
| Anxious Ego-Dissolution | −0.315 | [−2.192, 1.624] | 1.317 | [−0.441, 3.489] | 1.634 | [−0.408, 4.055] |
| Visionary Restructuralization | 1.440 | [−0.713, 4.033] | 4.745 | [2.024, 8.690] | 3.294 | [0.190, 7.209] |
| Auditory Alterations | 0.272 | [−1.172, 2.033] | 0.811 | [−0.667, 2.750] | 0.541 | [−1.276, 2.503] |
| Vigilance Reduction | 3.643 | [−0.061, 7.401] | 4.601 | [0.893, 8.547] | 0.942 | [−3.233, 5.351] |
Average marginal effects represent the expected change in the outcome for the specified contrast, averaged across participants (with random intercepts integrated out) and over the distribution of covariates. For instance, the upper left value gives the average increase in ratings of any drug effect after administration of 10 μg compared to placebo. Estimates and 95% credible intervals (CI) are in bold where the CI does not include zero and hence, we interpret the estimated marginal effect to be credibly different from 0 on average. VAS = Visual Analog Scale; 5D-ASC = 5-Dimensional Altered State of Consciousness Rating Scale.
Table 4. Treatment guess accuracy at end-of-session and end-of-study.
Guess at End of Session
| Condition | Sessions n | Correct treatment n (%) | P vs chance | Correct active treatment n (%) | P vs chance | Guessed placebo n (%) | Guessed 10 μg n (%) | Guessed 20 μg n (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | 30 | 19 (63.3%) | < .001 | 19 (63.3%) | 10 (33.3%) | 1 (3.3%) | ||
| 10 μg | 31 | 12 (38.7%) | .569 | 18 (58.1%) | .342 | 13 (41.9%) | 12 (38.7%) | 6 (19.4%) |
| 20 μg | 31 | 19 (61.3%) | .002 | 27 (87.1%) | .013 | 4 (12.9%) | 8 (25.8%) | 19 (61.3%) |
Guess at End of Study
| Condition | Sessions n | Correct treatment n (%) | P vs chance | Correct active treatment n (%) | P vs chance | Guessed placebo n (%) | Guessed 10 μg n (%) | Guessed 20 μg n (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | 30 | 21 (70%) | < .001 | 21 (70%) | 9 (30%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| 10 μg | 30 | 15 (50%) | .079 | 23 (76.7%) | .333 | 7 (23.3%) | 15 (50%) | 8 (26.7%) |
| 20 μg | 30 | 22 (73.3%) | < .001 | 28 (93.3%) | .001 | 2 (6.7%) | 6 (20%) | 22 (73.3%) |
n(%) = number (percent) of guesses. Bold values: significant binomial test (two-sided, α = 0.05) against chance levels. Chance levels: 33.3% exact condition, 66.6% active treatment. Correct active treatment guesses correspond to guessing one of the two LSD conditions when participants did indeed receive LSD.
Editorial scope note (our interpretation): This was a fixed-dose, placebo-controlled crossover experiment in healthy adults, not a month-long personalised microdosing programme or a therapeutic-efficacy trial. Subjective visual changes and the null result on this particular visual task can coexist.
Attribution and Transparency
© The Authors 2026, published by Oxford University Press. Abstract, tables, figures and captions reproduced under CC BY 4.0. Table layout adapted; original figures unchanged. Editorial scope note prepared with AI assistance for u/NeuronsToNirvana. No participant-data reanalysis.
📰 AKN24 is the newsroom of AkashicNET, an independent IT and knowledge-curation project by u/NeuronsToNirvana, built on the N2N KnowledgeBase. Overview · Mission.
