ArticleCognitive processing2019
Adults' spatial scaling: evidence from the haptic domain.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adults' spatial scaling of tactile maps: Insights from studying sighted, early and late blind individuals.PloS one · 2024Article
- Scaling up = scaling down? Children's spatial scaling in different perceptual modalities and scaling directions.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2023Article
- Effects of scaling direction on adults' spatial scaling in different perceptual domains.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Adults' spatial scaling from memory: Comparing the visual and haptic domain.Memory & cognition · 2022Article
- Differences in adults' spatial scaling based on visual or haptic information.Cognitive processing · 2022Article
- Blindfolded adults use mental transformation strategies for spatial scaling of tactile maps.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Visually Scaling Distance from Memory: Do Visible Midline Boundaries Make a Difference?Spatial cognition and computation · 2020Article
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
The current study investigated adults' spatial-scaling abilities using a haptic localization task. As a first aim, we examined the strategies used to solve this haptic task. Secondly, we explored whether irrelevant visual information influenced adults' spatial-scaling performance. Thirty-two adults were asked to locate targets as presented in maps on a larger or same-sized referent space. Maps varied in size in accordance with different scaling factors (1:4, 1:2, 1:1), whereas the referent space was constant in size throughout the experimental session. The availability of irrelevant, non-informative vision was manipulated by blindfolding half of the participants prior to the experiment (condition without non-informative vision), whereas the other half were able to see their surroundings with the stimuli being hidden behind a curtain (condition with non-informative vision). Analyses with absolute errors (after correcting for reversal errors) as the dependent variable revealed a significant interaction of the scaling factor and non-informative vision condition. Adults in the blindfolded condition showed constant errors and response times irrespective of scaling factor. Such a response pattern indicates the usage of relative strategies. Adults in the curtain condition showed a linear increase in errors with higher scaling factors, whereas their response times remained constant. This pattern of results supports the usage of absolute strategies or mental transformation strategies. Overall, our results indicate different scaling strategies depending on the availability of non-informative vision, highlighting the strong influence of (even irrelevant) vision on adults' haptic processing.
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.