ArticleSpatial cognition and computation2020
Visually Scaling Distance from Memory: Do Visible Midline Boundaries Make a Difference?
Article in Spatial cognition and computation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Differences in adults' spatial scaling based on visual or haptic information.Cognitive processing · 2022Article
- 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We examined how 4- to 5-year-old children and adults use perceptual structure (visible midline boundaries) to visually scale distance. Participants completed scaling and no scaling tasks using learning and test mats that were 16 and 64 inches. No boundaries were present in Experiment 1. Children and adults had more difficulty in the scaling than no scaling task when the test mat was 64 inches but not 16 inches. Experiment 2 was identical except visible midline boundaries were present. Again, participants had more difficulty in the scaling than no scaling task when the test mat was 64 inches, suggesting they used the test mat edges (not the midline boundary) as perceptual anchors when scaling from the learning to the test mat.
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.