Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33751451›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2021

Effects of cognitive load and type of object on the visual looming bias.

Austen McGuire, Ali Ciersdorff, Omri Gillath, Michael Vitevitch

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Austen McGuireDepartment of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA. austenmcguire@ku.edu.
Ali CiersdorffDepartment of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA.
Omri GillathDepartment of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA.
Michael VitevitchDepartment of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA.

Funding

University of Kansas Center for Undergraduate Research N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

According to the behavioral urgency hypothesis, organisms have evolved various mechanisms that facilitate their survival by focusing attention and resources on approaching danger. One example of such mechanisms is the looming bias-the tendency for an individual to judge an approaching object's distance as being closer or time-to-collision as being sooner than receding or stationary objects. To date, most research on the looming bias has explored the ways in which human factors and object characteristics influence the strength and direction of the bias. The current study expanded on this field of research in two novels ways by exploring (a) whether cognitive vulnerabilities may influence the strength of the looming bias in the visual domain, and (b) whether the combination of human factors (i.e., cognitive load) and object characteristics (i.e., object threat) interact to create an additive effect on looming bias strength. Findings appear to only partially support the hypotheses that cognitive vulnerabilities can influence looming bias strength in the visual domain, and that factors related to both the individual and the looming object may interact to create a stronger looming bias. These findings help to highlight possible evolutionary advantages of the looming bias and its presence across modalities, as well as add some strength to the claims that the margin of safety theory can be generalized to include psychological factors.

Indexed as

Auditory PerceptionMotion PerceptionCognitionHumansCognitive loadLooming biasThreatVisual perception

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.