Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30687198›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2018

Visual Field Advantage: Redefined by Training?

Scott A Stone, Jared Baker, Rob Olsen, Robbin Gibb, Jon Doan, Joshua Hoetmer, Claudia L R Gonzalez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Is there a lower visual field advantage for object affordances? A registered report.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

Scott A StoneDepartment of Psychology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Jared BakerDepartment of Kinesiology, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB, Canada.
Rob OlsenDepartment of Kinesiology, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB, Canada.
Robbin GibbDepartment of Neuroscience, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB, Canada.
Jon DoanDepartment of Kinesiology, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB, Canada.
Joshua HoetmerAlberta Sport Development Centre Southwest, Lethbridge, AB, Canada.
Claudia L R GonzalezDepartment of Kinesiology, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previc (1990) postulated that most peri-personal space interactions occurred in the lower visual field (LVF), leading to an advantage when compared to the upper visual field (UVF). It is not clear if extensive practice can affect the difference between interactions in the LVF/UVF. We tested male and female basketball varsity athletes and non-athletes on a DynaVision D2 visuomotor reaction task. We recruited basketball players because in their training they spend significant amount of time processing UVF information. We found a LVF advantage in all participants, but this advantage was significantly reduced in the athletes. The results suggest that training can be a powerful modulator of visuomotor function.

Indexed as

athletic trainingbasketball athletesmovement timevisual fieldsvisual processing

Identifiers

PMID30687198
PMCPMC6335314

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.