Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35174463›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2022

What is cued by faces in the face-based context-specific proportion congruent manipulation?

Thomas Hutcheon

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

1 author.

Thomas HutcheonBard College, Psychology Program, Annandale-On-Hudson, NY, USA. thutcheo@bard.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In a typical context-specific proportion congruent manipulation, participants are presented with Stroop stimuli in one of two contexts. In one context, stimuli are mostly incongruent. In the other context, stimuli are mostly congruent. Despite task-wide instructions to ignore the word and to name the color in which the word appears, the size of the congruency effect varies as a function of context. Specifically, the size of the congruency effect is reduced for the mostly incongruent relative to the mostly congruent context. The purpose of the current series of experiments is to explore the mechanisms underlying this context-specific proportion congruent (CSPC) effect when faces are used as the context. Existing manipulations have reported a face-based CSPC effect, however the results of these studies are confounded with contingency learning biases leaving an open question as to what processes faces serve to cue. In the four experiments reported here both inducer (contingency-biased) and diagnostic (contingency-unbiased) stimuli were included in a face-based context level manipulation. Across four experiments, a face-based CSPC effect is observed for inducer but not diagnostic stimuli, suggesting that this effect is driven by participants learning context + stimulus associations.

Indexed as

CuesLearningConditioning, ClassicalHeadHumansReaction TimeStroop TestAttention: Selective, cognitive and attentional controlFace perception

Identifiers

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.