ArticleJournal of vision2021
A major role for retrieval and/or comparison in the set-size effects of change detection.
Article in Journal of vision, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Set-size effects in change detection have been attributed to capacity limits in a variety of processes, including perception, memory encoding, memory storage, memory retrieval, comparison, and decision. In this study, we investigated the locus of the effect of increasing set size from 1 to 2. The task was to detect a 90 degree change in the orientation of 1 or 2 briefly presented Gabor patterns in noise. To measure purely attentional effects and not another phenomena, such as crowding, a precue was used to manipulate relevant set size while keeping the display constant. The locus of the capacity limit was determined by varying when observers were cued to a single relevant stimulus. To begin, we measured the baseline set-size effect for change detection. Next, a dual-task procedure and a 100% valid postcue was added to test for an effect of decision: This modification did not reliably change the set-size effects. In the critical experiments, a 100% valid cue was provided during the retention interval between displays, or only one stimulus was presented in the second display (local recognition). For both of these conditions, there was only a relatively small set-size effect. These results are consistent with the bulk of capacity limits being in memory retrieval or comparison and not in perception, memory encoding, or memory storage.
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.