Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28154496›Full record

ArticleVisual cognition

Modelling individual difference in visual categorization.

Jianhong Shen, Thomas J Palmeri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Visual cognition. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Bayesian statistical approaches to evaluating cognitive models.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science · 2018
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jianhong ShenVanderbilt University.
Thomas J PalmeriVanderbilt University.

Funding

Shop Module CoreP30EY008126 · NEI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI Kevin L Schey · 1989 to 2026
$19.6M
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY008126
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent years has seen growing interest in understanding, characterizing, and explaining individual differences in visual cognition. We focus here on individual differences in visual categorization. Categorization is the fundamental visual ability to group different objects together as the same kind of thing. Research on visual categorization and category learning has been significantly informed by computational modeling, so our review will focus both on how formal models of visual categorization have captured individual differences and how individual difference have informed the development of formal models. We first examine the potential sources of individual differences in leading models of visual categorization, providing a brief review of a range of different models. We then describe several examples of how computational models have captured individual differences in visual categorization. This review also provides a bit of an historical perspective, starting with models that predicted no individual differences, to those that captured group differences, to those that predict true individual differences, and to more recent hierarchical approaches that can simultaneously capture both group and individual differences in visual categorization. Via this selective review, we see how considerations of individual differences can lead to important theoretical insights into how people visually categorize objects in the world around them. We also consider new directions for work examining individual differences in visual categorization.

Indexed as

computational modelingindividual differencevisual categorization

Identifiers

PMID28154496
PMCPMC5278636

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.