Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33941376›Full record

ArticleCognition2021

There is no evidence that meaning maps capture semantic information relevant to gaze guidance: Reply to Henderson, Hayes, Peacock, and Rehrig (2021).

Marek A Pedziwiatr, Matthias Kümmerer, Thomas S A Wallis, Matthias Bethge, Christoph Teufel

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cognition, 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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Marek A PedziwiatrCardiff University, Cardiff University Brain Research Imaging Centre (CUBRIC), School of Psychology, Cardiff, United Kingdom; Queen Mary University of London, Department of Biological and Experimental Psychology, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: m.pedziwiatr@qmul.ac.uk.
Matthias KümmererUniversity of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Thomas S A WallisTechnical University Darmstadt, Institute for Psychology and Centre for Cognitive Science, Darmstadt, Germany.
Matthias BethgeUniversity of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Christoph TeufelCardiff University, Cardiff University Brain Research Imaging Centre (CUBRIC), School of Psychology, Cardiff, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The concerns raised by Henderson, Hayes, Peacock, and Rehrig (2021) are based on misconceptions of our work. We show that Meaning Maps (MMs) do not predict gaze guidance better than a state-of-the-art saliency model that is based on semantically-neutral, high-level features. We argue that there is therefore no evidence to date that MMs index anything beyond these features. Furthermore, we show that although alterations in meaning cause changes in gaze guidance, MMs fail to capture these alterations. We agree that semantic information is important in the guidance of eye-movements, but the contribution of MMs for understanding its role remains elusive.

Indexed as

Fixation, OcularSemanticsAttentionEye MovementsHumansVisual PerceptionEye movementsMeaning mapsNatural scenesSaliencyScene perceptionSemantic information

Identifiers

PMID33941376

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.