ArticleBehavior research methods2016
Measuring nonvisual knowledge about object categories: The Semantic Vanderbilt Expertise Test.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- The Tuned Cortex: Convergent Expertise-Related Structural and Functional Remodeling across the Adult Lifespan.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Article
- Early stage of radiological expertise modulates resting-state local coherence in the inferior temporal lobe.Psychoradiology · 2022Article
- The structure of prior knowledge enhances memory in experts by reducing interference.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Individual differences in object recognition.Psychological review · 2019Article
- Use-inspired basic research on individual differences in face identification: implications for criminal investigation and security.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2018Article
- Global precedence effects account for individual differences in both face and object recognition performance.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2018Article
- Individual differences in perceptual abilities in medical imaging: the Vanderbilt Chest Radiograph Test.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2017Article
- Gender differences in recognition of toy faces suggest a contribution of experience.Vision research · 2016Article
- Validation of the Vanderbilt Holistic Face Processing Test.Frontiers in psychology · 2016Article
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
How much do people differ in their abilities to recognize objects, and what is the source of these differences? To address the first question, psychologists have created visual learning tests including the Cambridge Face Memory Test (Duchaine & Nakayama, 2006) and the Vanderbilt Expertise Test (VET; McGugin et al., 2012). The second question requires consideration of the influences of both innate potential and experience, but experience is difficult to measure. One solution is to measure the products of experience beyond perceptual knowledge-specifically, nonvisual semantic knowledge. For instance, the relation between semantic and perceptual knowledge can help clarify the nature of object recognition deficits in brain-damaged patients (Barton, Hanif, & Ashraf, Brain, 132, 3456-3466, 2009). We present a reliable measure of nonperceptual knowledge in a format applicable across categories. The Semantic Vanderbilt Expertise Test (SVET) measures knowledge of relevant category-specific nomenclature. We present SVETs for eight categories: cars, planes, Transformers, dinosaurs, shoes, birds, leaves, and mushrooms. The SVET demonstrated good reliability and domain-specific validity. We found partial support for the idea that the only source of domain-specific shared variance between the VET and SVET is experience with a category. We also demonstrated the utility of the SVET-Bird in experts. The SVET can facilitate the study of individual differences in visual recognition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.