ArticleScientific reports2021
Tool heads prime saccades.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contentopic mapping in ventral and dorsal association cortex: The topographical organization of manipulable object information.NeuroImage · 2025Article
- Is there a lower visual field advantage for object affordances? A registered report.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2024Article
- On the functional brain networks involved in tool-related action understanding.Communications biology · 2023Article
- Cognitive Archeology and the Attentional System: An Evolutionary Mismatch for the GenusJournal of Intelligence · 2023Article
- Article
- Perceived depth modulates perceptual resolution.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tools are wielded by their handles, but a lot of information about their function comes from their heads (the action-ends). Here we investigated whether eye saccadic movements are primed by tool handles, or whether they are primed by tool heads. We measured human saccadic reaction times while subjects were performing an attentional task. We found that saccades were executed quicker when performed to the side congruent with the tool head, even though "toolness" was irrelevant for the task. Our results show that heads are automatically processed by the visual system to orient eye movements, indicating that eyes are attracted by functional parts of manipulable objects and by the characteristic information these parts convey.
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.