Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33732200›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021

Why Are Acquired Search-Guiding Context Memories Resistant to Updating?

Thomas Geyer, Werner Seitz, Artyom Zinchenko, Hermann J Müller, Markus Conci

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Thomas GeyerDepartment Psychologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Werner SeitzDepartment Psychologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Artyom ZinchenkoDepartment Psychologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Hermann J MüllerDepartment Psychologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Markus ConciDepartment Psychologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Looking for goal-relevant objects in our various environments is one of the most ubiquitous tasks the human visual system has to accomplish (Wolfe, 1998). Visual search is guided by a number of separable selective-attention mechanisms that can be categorized as bottom-up driven - guidance by salient physical properties of the current stimuli - or top-down controlled - guidance by observers' "online" knowledge of search-critical object properties (e.g., Liesefeld and Müller, 2019). In addition, observers' expectations based on past experience also play also a significant role in goal-directed visual selection. Because sensory environments are typically stable, it is beneficial for the visual system to extract and learn the environmental regularities that are predictive of (the location of) the target stimulus. This perspective article is concerned with one of these predictive mechanisms: statistical context learning of consistent spatial patterns of target and distractor items in visual search. We review recent studies on context learning and its adaptability to incorporate consistent changes, with the aim to provide new directions to the study of processes involved in the acquisition of search-guiding context memories and their adaptation to consistent contextual changes - from a three-pronged, psychological, computational, and neurobiological perspective.

Indexed as

associative learningcontextual cueingmemory systemsselective attentionspike-timing dependent plasticityvisual search

Identifiers

PMID33732200
PMCPMC7956950

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.