ArticleJournal of vision2018
Occluded information is restored at preview but not during visual search.
Article in Journal of vision, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microsaccade Dynamics Enhance Nodule Detection and Discriminate Reader Expertise Levels During Chest Radiography.Research square · 2026Article
- Design guidelines for animated data visualization based on perceptual capacity limits.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2026Review
- Where's Wanda? The influence of visual imagery vividness on visual search speed measured by means of hidden object pictures.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Article
- Mandating Limits on Workload, Duty, and Speed in Radiology.Radiology · 2022Review
- Negative cues minimize visual search specificity effects.Vision research · 2022Article
- Visual Illusions in Radiology: Untrue Perceptions in Medical Images and Their Implications for Diagnostic Accuracy.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Review
- What do radiologists look for? Advances and limitations of perceptual learning in radiologic search.Journal of vision · 2020Review
- Specifying the precision of guiding features for visual search.Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance · 2019Article
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
Abstract
Objects often appear with some amount of occlusion. We fill in missing information using local shape features even before attending to those objects-a process called amodal completion. Here we explore the possibility that knowledge about common realistic objects can be used to "restore" missing information even in cases where amodal completion is not expected. We systematically varied whether visual search targets were occluded or not, both at preview and in search displays. Button-press responses were longest when the preview was unoccluded and the target was occluded in the search display. This pattern is consistent with a target-verification process that uses the features visible at preview but does not restore missing information in the search display. However, visual search guidance was weakest whenever the target was occluded in the search display, regardless of whether it was occluded at preview. This pattern suggests that information missing during the preview was restored and used to guide search, thereby resulting in a feature mismatch and poor guidance. If this process were preattentive, as with amodal completion, we should have found roughly equivalent search guidance across all conditions because the target would always be unoccluded or restored, resulting in no mismatch. We conclude that realistic objects are restored behind occluders during search target preview, even in situations not prone to amodal completion, and this restoration does not occur preattentively during search.
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.