ArticleScientific reports2021
Recognising the dynamic form of fire.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Encoding and recognising complex natural sequences provides a challenge for human vision. We found that observers could recognise a previously presented segment of a video of a hearth fire when embedded in a longer sequence. Recognition performance declined when the test video was spatially inverted, but not when it was hue reversed or temporally reversed. Sampled motion degraded forwards/reversed playback discrimination, indicating observers were sensitive to the asymmetric pattern of motion of flames. For brief targets, performance increased with target length. More generally, performance depended on the relative lengths of the target and embedding sequence. Increased errors with embedded sequence length were driven by positive responses to non-target sequences (false alarms) rather than omissions. Taken together these observations favour interpreting performance in terms of an incremental decision-making model based on a sequential statistical analysis in which evidence accrues for one of two alternatives. We also suggest that prediction could provide a means of providing and evaluating evidence in a sequential analysis model.
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.