ArticleNoro psikiyatri arsivi2018
I Thought I Saw "
Article in Noro psikiyatri arsivi, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveInattentional blindness (IB) refers to an observer's failure to notice unexpected stimulus. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of the priming type (perceptual, conceptual, and no priming) and emotional context (positive, negative, neutral) on IB with behavioral (IB, non-IB) and eye tracking measurements (latency of first fixation, total fixation time, and total fixation count in response to unexpected stimuli).
methodsA total of 193 volunteered male university students were invited in the study. Three thematic videos (positive, negative, and neutral) were created to capture the IB. In the first stage, five pictures (a model dressed in different costumes
resultsMain and interaction effects of priming type and emotional contexts were not significant in terms of the behavioral measures. In addition, there were no significant differences between types of priming for eye tracking measures. However, there were significant differences between types of emotional contexts in all eye tracking measurements. In the negative context, participants made less total fixation, and looked shorter to unexpected stimulus than positive and neutral contexts. In addition, non-notifiers made less total fixation, and looked at unexpected stimulus for a shorter time compared to notifiers.
conclusionThe fact of "
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.