Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32271065›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition2020

Where the action could be: Speakers look at graspable objects and meaningful scene regions when describing potential actions.

Gwendolyn Rehrig, Candace E Peacock, Taylor R Hayes, John M Henderson, Fernanda Ferreira

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Rapid Extraction of the Spatial Distribution of Physical Saliency and Semantic Informativeness from Natural Scenes in the Human Brain.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors.

Gwendolyn RehrigDepartment of Psychology.ORCID 0000-0002-5263-4924
Candace E PeacockCenter for Mind and Brain.
Taylor R HayesCenter for Mind and Brain.
John M HendersonCenter for Mind and Brain.
Fernanda FerreiraDepartment of Psychology.

Funding

Vision Science Training Program: Cornea to CortexT32EY015387 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS · PI MARIE E BURNS · 2003 to 2026
$4.8M
Guiding Attention in Real-World ScenesR01EY027792 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI John M Henderson · 2017 to 2026
$2.5M
National Institutes of Health; National Eye InstituteNational Science FoundationNEI NIH HHS R01 EY027792NEI NIH HHS T32 EY015387University of California, Davis
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The world is visually complex, yet we can efficiently describe it by extracting the information that is most relevant to convey. How do the properties of real-world scenes help us decide where to look and what to say? Image salience has been the dominant explanation for what drives visual attention and production as we describe displays, but new evidence shows scene meaning predicts attention better than image salience. Here we investigated the relevance of one aspect of meaning, graspability (the grasping interactions objects in the scene afford), given that affordances have been implicated in both visual and linguistic processing. We quantified image salience, meaning, and graspability for real-world scenes. In 3 eyetracking experiments, native English speakers described possible actions that could be carried out in a scene. We hypothesized that graspability would preferentially guide attention due to its task-relevance. In 2 experiments using stimuli from a previous study, meaning explained visual attention better than graspability or salience did, and graspability explained attention better than salience. In a third experiment we quantified image salience, meaning, graspability, and reach-weighted graspability for scenes that depicted reachable spaces containing graspable objects. Graspability and meaning explained attention equally well in the third experiment, and both explained attention better than salience. We conclude that speakers use object graspability to allocate attention to plan descriptions when scenes depict graspable objects within reach, and otherwise rely more on general meaning. The results shed light on what aspects of meaning guide attention during scene viewing in language production tasks. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Indexed as

AdultAttentionEye-Tracking TechnologyHumansMotor ActivityPattern Recognition, VisualSpace PerceptionVerbal BehaviorYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32271065
PMCPMC7483632

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.