ArticlePeerJ2022
Tracking multiple fish.
Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- A meta-analysis of performance advantages on athletes in multiple object tracking tasks.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although the Multiple Object Tracking (MOT) task is a widely used experimental method for studying divided attention, tracking objects in the real world usually looks different. For example, in the real world, objects are usually clearly distinguishable from each other and also possess different movement patterns. One such case is tracking groups of creatures, such as tracking fish in an aquarium. We used movies of fish in an aquarium and measured general tracking performance in this task (Experiment 1). In Experiment 2, we compared tracking accuracy within-subjects in fish tracking, tracking typical MOT stimuli, and in a third condition using standard MOT uniform objects which possessed movement patterns similar to the real fish. This third condition was added to further examine the impact of different motion characteristics on tracking performance. Results within a Bayesian framework showed that tracking real fish shares similarities with tracking simple objects in a typical laboratory MOT task. Furthermore, we observed a close relationship between performance in both laboratory MOT tasks (typical and fish-like) and real fish tracking, suggesting that the commonly used laboratory MOT task possesses a good level of ecological validity.
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.