Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30202509›Full record

Articlei-Perception

Chasing Animals With Split Attention: Are Animals Prioritized in Visual Tracking?

Thomas Hagen, Thomas Espeseth, Bruno Laeng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in i-Perception. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
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

3 authors.

Thomas HagenDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1481-389X
Thomas EspesethDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Norway; NORMENT, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital, Norway.
Bruno LaengDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1539-4893

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Some evolutionary psychologists have hypothesized that animals have priority in human attention. That is, they should be detected and selected more efficiently than other types of objects, especially man-made ones. Such a priority mechanism should automatically deploy more attentional resources and dynamic monitoring toward animal stimuli than nonanimals. Consequently, we postulated that variations of the

Indexed as

animacyanimalsanimate monitoring hypothesisattentionmultiple event monitoringmultiple identity trackingmultiple object tracking

Identifiers

PMID30202509
PMCPMC6124190

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.