ArticleJournal of vision2022
Diminishing sensitivity and absolute difference in value-driven attention.
Article in Journal of vision, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Value-driven attention and associative learning models: a computational simulation analysis.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2023Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Kim and Beck (2020b) demonstrated that value-driven attention is based on relative value rather than absolute value, suggesting that prospect theory is relevant to our understanding of value-driven attention. To further this understanding, the present study investigated the impacts of diminishing sensitivity on value-driven attention. According to diminishing sensitivity, changes in outcomes have greater impacts nearer the reference point of 0 than farther from the point. Thus, the difference between $1 and $100 looms larger than that between $901 and $1000, due to their different ratios (100/1 > 1000/901). However, according to the absolute difference hypothesis, the differences should have similar impacts due to the absolute differences being the same (100 - 1 = 1000 - 901). Experiment 1 investigated whether diminishing sensitivity operates in the modified value-driven attention paradigm while controlling the impact of absolute differences. In the training phase, 100-point and 1000-point color targets had references of 1-point and 901-point color targets, respectively. In the test phase, 100-point color distractors attracted attention more than 1000-point color distractors, supporting the diminishing sensitivity hypothesis. Experiment 2 examined the absolute difference hypothesis while controlling the impact of diminishing sensitivity. Contrary to the absolute difference hypothesis, the test phase showed that 1000-point color distractors (compared with 10-point colors for a 990 absolute difference in the training phase) failed to attract attention more than 100-point color distractors (compared with 1-point colors, for a 99 absolute difference). These results suggest that diminishing sensitivity rather than absolute difference influences value-driven attention, further supporting the relevance of prospect theory to value-driven attention.
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.