ArticleCognitive processing2022
Differences in adults' spatial scaling based on visual or haptic information.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adults' spatial scaling of tactile maps: Insights from studying sighted, early and late blind individuals.PloS one · 2024Article
- Scaling up = scaling down? Children's spatial scaling in different perceptual modalities and scaling directions.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2023Article
- Effects of scaling direction on adults' spatial scaling in different perceptual domains.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Blindfolded adults use mental transformation strategies for spatial scaling of tactile maps.Scientific reports · 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
Abstract
The present study examined differences in adults' spatial-scaling abilities across three perceptual conditions: (1) visual, (2) haptic, and (3) visual and haptic. Participants were instructed to encode the position of a convex target presented in a simple map without a time limit. Immediately after encoding the map, participants were presented with a referent space and asked to place a disc at the same location from memory. All spaces were designed as tactile graphics. Positions of targets varied along the horizontal dimension. The referent space was constant in size while sizes of maps were systematically varied, resulting in three scaling factor conditions: 1:4, 1:2, 1:1. Sixty adults participated in the study (M = 21.18; SD = 1.05). One-third of them was blindfolded throughout the entire experiment (haptic condition). The second group of participants was allowed to see the graphics (visual condition); the third group were instructed to see and touch the graphics (bimodal condition). An analysis of participants' absolute errors showed that participants produced larger errors in the haptic condition as opposed to the visual and bimodal conditions. There was also a significant interaction effect between scaling factor and perceptual condition. In the visual and bimodal conditions, results showed a linear increase in errors with higher scaling factors (which may suggest that adults adopted mental transformation strategies during the spatial scaling process), whereas, in the haptic condition, this relation was quadratic. Findings imply that adults' spatial-scaling performance decreases when visual information is not available.
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.