Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32016685›Full record

ArticleCognitive processing2020

Examining the roles of working memory and visual attention in multiple object tracking expertise.

David J Harris, Mark R Wilson, Emily M Crowe, Samuel J Vine

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive processing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. How history trails and set size influence detection of hostile intentions.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2022
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

David J HarrisSchool of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Exeter, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK. D.J.Harris@exeter.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3880-3856
Mark R WilsonSchool of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Exeter, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK.
Emily M CroweDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Samuel J VineSchool of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Exeter, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK.
University of Exeter · GBVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NL

Funding

Defence Science and Technology Laboratory TIN3.215
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When tracking multiple moving targets among visually similar distractors, human observers are capable of distributing attention over several spatial locations. It is unclear, however, whether capacity limitations or perceptual-cognitive abilities are responsible for the development of expertise in multiple object tracking. Across two experiments, we examined the role of working memory and visual attention in tracking expertise. In Experiment 1, individuals who regularly engaged in object tracking sports (soccer and rugby) displayed improved tracking performance, relative to non-tracking sports (swimming, rowing, running) (p = 0.02, η

Indexed as

AttentionMemory, Short-TermVisual PerceptionAdultFemaleHumansEye trackingGazeMOTPerceptual–cognitive expertiseSport

Identifiers

PMID32016685
PMCPMC7203592
OpenAlexW3005398235

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.