ArticlePloS one2020
Evaluating spatiotemporal integration of shape cues.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recognition of letters displayed as successive contour fragments.AIMS neuroscience · 2022Article
- Grouping strategies in numerosity perception between intrinsic and extrinsic grouping cues.Scientific reports · 2021Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prior work has shown that humans can successfully identify letters that are constructed with a sparse array of dots, wherein the dot pattern reflects the strokes that would normally be used to fashion a given letter. In the present work the dots were briefly displayed, one at a time in sequence, varying the spatial order in which they were shown. A forward sequence was spatially ordered as though one were passing a stroke across the dots to connect them. Experiments compared this baseline condition to the following three conditions: a) the dot sequence was spatially ordered, but in the reverse direction from how letter strokes might normally be written; b) the dots in each stroke of the letter were displayed in a random order; c) the sequence of displayed dots were chosen for display from any location in the letter. Significant differences were found between the baseline condition and all three of the comparison conditions, with letter recognition being far worse for the random conditions than for conditions that provided consistent spatial ordering of dot sequences. These findings show that spatial order is critical for integration of shape cues that have been sequentially displayed.
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.