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.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- When right side up is upside down: Vertical attention bias tracks interactive feature regularities in upright and inverted images.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Searching for meaning: Local scene semantics guide attention during natural visual search in scenes.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2023Article
- Visual attention during seeing for speaking in healthy aging.Psychology and aging · 2023Article
- Speakers prioritise affordance-based object semantics in scene descriptions.Language, cognition and neuroscience · 2023Article
- Look at what I can do: Object affordances guide visual attention while speakers describe potential actions.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2022Article
- Meaning maps detect the removal of local semantic scene content but deep saliency models do not.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2022Article
- Semantic object-scene inconsistencies affect eye movements, but not in the way predicted by contextualized meaning maps.Journal of vision · 2022Article
- 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 · 2022Article
- Meaning and expected surfaces combine to guide attention during visual search in scenes.Journal of vision · 2021Article
- Meaning maps capture the density of local semantic features in scenes: A reply to Pedziwiatr, Kümmerer, Wallis, Bethge & Teufel (2021).Cognition · 2021Article
- Center Bias Does Not Account for the Advantage of Meaning Over Salience in Attentional Guidance During Scene Viewing.Frontiers in psychology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
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
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.