ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2020
Target specificity improves search, but how universal is the benefit?
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Negative cues minimize visual search specificity effects.Vision research · 2022Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Pictorial cues generally produce stronger search performance relative to categorical cues. We asked how universal is the benefit of a pictorial cue? To test this, we trained observers to categorize sinusoidal gratings in which categories were distinguished by spatial frequency or orientation. Next, participants completed a search task in which targets were pictorially and categorically cued. Measures of target and distractor processing that primarily rely on foveal processing showed universal benefits; however, the benefit was larger in the orientation condition. Importantly, an index of the direction of spatial attention (i.e., target guidance) showed that the orientation condition produced a pictorial benefit but the spatial frequency condition did not. Experiment 2 replicated the spatial frequency results and also included conditions that increased the discriminability, lowered the spatial frequencies, or both increased the discriminability and decreased the spatial frequencies of the categories. We found that only categories utilizing lower spatial frequencies produced a pictorial guidance benefit. This demonstrates that pictorial cues do not universally improve search performance above categorical cues; it depends on the features that distinguish the categories. Additionally, the increased discriminability condition improved guidance but failed to produce a pictorial benefit, suggesting an interesting disassociation between the amount of target guidance and the existence of a pictorial benefit. Given that perception is known to progress from low/coarse to high/fine spatial frequencies, this suggests that the pictorial guidance benefit acts on early low-spatial frequency processing only, but foveal object recognition processes utilize both early and late spatial frequency processing.
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.