ArticleJournal of vision2021
Individual differences in crowding predict visual search performance.
Article in Journal of vision, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Covert-attention shifting superseded: Simple visual search explained by a computational cognitive architecture with early vision limitations, eye movements, and task strategies.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Review
- Human V4 size predicts crowding distance.Nature communications · 2025Article
- ATLAS: Mapping ATtention's Location And Size to probe five modes of serial and parallel search.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Article
- The time course of stimulus-specific perceptual learning.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- The Bouma law accounts for crowding in 50 observers.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- Spatial variability in localization biases predicts crowding performance.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- Crowding: Recent advances and perspectives.Journal of vision · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Visual search is an integral part of human behavior and has proven important to understanding mechanisms of perception, attention, memory, and oculomotor control. Thus far, the dominant theoretical framework posits that search is mainly limited by covert attentional mechanisms, comprising a central bottleneck in visual processing. A different class of theories seeks the cause in the inherent limitations of peripheral vision, with search being constrained by what is known as the functional viewing field (FVF). One of the major factors limiting peripheral vision, and thus the FVF, is crowding. We adopted an individual differences approach to test the prediction from FVF theories that visual search performance is determined by the efficacy of peripheral vision, in particular crowding. Forty-four participants were assessed with regard to their sensitivity to crowding (as measured by critical spacing) and their search efficiency (as indicated by manual responses and eye movements). This revealed substantial correlations between the two tasks, as stronger susceptibility to crowding was predictive of slower search, more eye movements, and longer fixation durations. Our results support FVF theories in showing that peripheral vision is an important determinant of visual search efficiency.
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.