ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2022
Modeling mean estimation tasks in within-trial and across-trial contexts.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The perceptual average in ensemble representation: Neither perceptual nor an average.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- People display consistent recency and primacy effects in behavior and neural activity across perceptual and value-based judgments.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2025Article
- Independent short- and long-term dependencies in perception.Journal of vision · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The mean estimation task, which explicitly asks observers to estimate the mean feature value of multiple stimuli, is a fundamental paradigm in research areas such as ensemble coding and cue integration. The current study uses computational models to formalize how observers summarize information in mean estimation tasks. We compare model predictions from our Fidelity-based Integration Model (FIM) and other models on their ability to simulate observed patterns in within-trial weight distribution, across-trial information integration, and set-size effects on mean estimation accuracy. Experiments show non-equal weighting within trials in both sequential and simultaneous mean estimation tasks. Observers implicitly overestimated trial means below the global mean and underestimated trial means above the global mean. Mean estimation performance declined and stabilized with increasing set sizes. FIM successfully simulated all observed patterns, while other models failed. FIM's information sampling structure provides a new way to interpret the capacity limit in visual working memory and sub-sampling strategies. As a model framework, FIM offers task-dependent modeling for various ensemble coding paradigms, facilitating research synthesis across different studies in the literature.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35199324What 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.