Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34918221›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2022

Introducing the Prototypical Stimulus Characteristics Toolbox: Protosc.

S M Stuit, C L E Paffen, S Van der Stigchel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

3 authors.

S M StuitDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands. S.M.Stuit@uu.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-3891-2171
C L E PaffenDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
S Van der StigchelDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many studies use different categories of images to define their conditions. Since any difference between these categories is a valid candidate to explain category-related behavioral differences, knowledge about the objective image differences between categories is crucial for the interpretation of the behaviors. However, natural images vary in many image features and not every feature is equally important in describing the differences between the categories. Here, we provide a methodological approach to find as many of the image features as possible, using machine learning performance as a tool, that have predictive value over the category the images belong to. In other words, we describe a means to find the features of a group of images by which the categories can be objectively and quantitatively defined. Note that we are not aiming to provide a means for the best possible decoding performance; instead, our aim is to uncover prototypical characteristics of the categories. To facilitate the use of this method, we offer an open-source, MATLAB-based toolbox that performs such an analysis and aids the user in visualizing the features of relevance. We first applied the toolbox to a mock data set with a ground truth to show the sensitivity of the approach. Next, we applied the toolbox to a set of natural images as a more practical example.

Indexed as

Machine LearningFacial ExpressionHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalImage StatisticsMachine LearningMatlabToolbox

Identifiers

PMID34918221
PMCPMC9579116

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.