Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34415982›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

'Seeing' proximal representations: Testing attitudes to the relationship between vision and images.

Steven Samuel, Klara Hagspiel, Geoff G Cole, Madeline J Eacott

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 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. On how people describe paintings with mirrors.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026
    Article
  2. It's Not You, It's Me: A Review of Individual Differences in Visuospatial Perspective Taking.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2023
    Review
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.

Steven SamuelDepartment of Psychology, University of Essex, Colchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7776-7427
Klara HagspielDepartment of Psychology, University of Essex, Colchester, United Kingdom.
Geoff G ColeDepartment of Psychology, University of Essex, Colchester, United Kingdom.
Madeline J EacottDepartment of Psychology, University of Essex, Colchester, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Corrections applied by the visual system, like size constancy, provide us with a coherent and stable perspective from ever-changing retinal images. In the present experiment we investigated how willing adults are to examine their own vision as if it were an uncorrected 2D image, much like a photograph. We showed adult participants two lines on a wall, both of which were the same length but one was closer to the participant and hence appeared visually longer. Despite the instruction to base their judgements on appearance specifically, approximately half of the participants judged the lines to appear the same. When they took a photo of the lines and were asked how long they appeared in the image their responses shifted; now the closer line appeared longer. However, when they were asked again about their own view they reverted to their original response. These results suggest that many adults are resistant to imagining their own vision as if it were a flat image. We also place these results within the context of recent views on visual perspective-taking.

Indexed as

Visual PerceptionAdultAttitudeFemaleHumansMaleVision, OcularYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID34415982
PMCPMC8378678

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.