Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32789661›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2021

Two replications of Raymond, Shapiro, and Arnell (1992), The Attentional Blink.

Massimo Grassi, Camilla Crotti, David Giofrè, Ingrid Boedker, Enrico Toffalini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Massimo GrassiDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padova, Via Venezia 8, 35131, Padova, Italy. massimo.grassi@unipd.it.ORCID 0000-0002-3784-2784
Camilla CrottiDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padova, Via Venezia 8, 35131, Padova, Italy.
David GiofrèDISFOR, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.
Ingrid BoedkerDISFOR, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.
Enrico ToffaliniDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padova, Via Venezia 8, 35131, Padova, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In order to improve the trustworthiness of our science, several new research practices have been suggested, including preregistration, large statistical power, availability of research data and materials, new statistical standards, and the replication of experiments. We conducted a replication project on an original phenomenon that was discovered more than 25 years ago, namely the attentional blink (Raymond, Shapiro, & Arnell, Human Perception and Performance, 18(3), 849-860, 1992), which has been conceptually replicated hundreds of times with major variations. Here, we ran two identical experiments, adopting the new practices and closely reproducing the original experiment. The two experiments were run by different research groups in different countries and laboratories with different participants. Experiment 1 shared remarkable similarities (in magnitude and duration of the effect) with the original study, but also some differences (the overall accuracy of participants, the timing of the effect, and lag-1 sparing). Experts interviewed to evaluate our results stressed the similarities rather than the differences. Experiment 2 replicated nearly identically the results observed in Experiment 1. These findings show that the adoption of new research practices improves the replicability of experimental research and opens the door for a quantitative and direct comparison of the results collected across different laboratories and countries.

Indexed as

Attentional BlinkAttentionHumansPattern Recognition, VisualReference StandardsAttentional blinkReplication

Identifiers

PMID32789661
PMCPMC8062350

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.