Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35165336›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Humans represent the precision and utility of information acquired across fixations.

Emma E M Stewart, Casimir J H Ludwig, Alexander C Schütz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Emma E M StewartDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Otto-Behaghel-Str. 10F, 35394, Giessen, Germany. Emma.Stewart@psychol.uni-giessen.de.
Casimir J H LudwigSchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Alexander C SchützAllgemeine und Biologische Psychologie, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Philipps University of Marburg · DEUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Giessen · DE

Funding

European Research Council 676786
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our environment contains an abundance of objects which humans interact with daily, gathering visual information using sequences of eye-movements to choose which object is best-suited for a particular task. This process is not trivial, and requires a complex strategy where task affordance defines the search strategy, and the estimated precision of the visual information gathered from each object may be used to track perceptual confidence for object selection. This study addresses the fundamental problem of how such visual information is metacognitively represented and used for subsequent behaviour, and reveals a complex interplay between task affordance, visual information gathering, and metacogntive decision making. People fixate higher-utility objects, and most importantly retain metaknowledge about how much information they have gathered about these objects, which is used to guide perceptual report choices. These findings suggest that such metacognitive knowledge is important in situations where decisions are based on information acquired in a temporal sequence.

Indexed as

MetacognitionTask Performance and AnalysisVisual PerceptionAdolescentAdultAttentionEye MovementsFemaleHumansMaleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID35165336
PMCPMC8844410
OpenAlexW4213116706

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.