Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21640836›Full record

ReviewNeuroImage2012

Attention, biological motion, and action recognition.

James Thompson, Raja Parasuraman

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in NeuroImage, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Attentional bias towards social interactions during viewing of naturalistic scenes.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Ensemble coding of crowd speed using biological motion.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

James ThompsonArch Laboratory, Department of Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA. jthompsz@gmu.edu
Raja Parasuraman

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interacting with others in the environment requires that we perceive and recognize their movements and actions. Neuroimaging and neuropsychological studies have indicated that a number of brain regions, particularly the superior temporal sulcus, are involved in a number of processes essential for action recognition, including the processing of biological motion and processing the intentions of actions. We review the behavioral and neuroimaging evidence suggesting that while some aspects of action recognition might be rapid and effective, they are not necessarily automatic. Attention is particularly important when visual information about actions is degraded or ambiguous, or if competing information is present. We present evidence indicating that neural responses associated with the processing of biological motion are strongly modulated by attention. In addition, behavioral and neuroimaging evidence shows that drawing inferences from the actions of others is attentionally demanding. The role of attention in action observation has implications for everyday social interactions and workplace applications that depend on observing, understanding and interpreting actions.

Indexed as

Interpersonal RelationsAttentionBrainBrain MappingHumansMotion PerceptionRecognition, Psychology

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.