ArticleBehavior research methods2023
SymCog: An open-source toolkit for assessing human symbolic cognition.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- An affective assessment: incarnate biases in picture captions for autistic children.International journal of developmental disabilities · 2024Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Symbol systems have a profound influence on human behavior, spanning countless modalities such as natural language, clothing styles, monetary systems, and gestural conventions (e.g., handshaking). Selective impairments in understanding and manipulating symbols are collectively known as asymbolia. Here we address open questions about the nature of asymbolia in the context of both historical and contemporary approaches to human symbolic cognition. We describe a tripartite perspective on symbolic cognition premised upon (1) mental representation of a concept, (2) a stored pool of symbols segregated from their respective referents, and (3) fast and accurate mapping between concepts and symbols. We present an open-source toolkit for assessing symbolic knowledge premised upon matching animated video depictions of abstract concepts to their corresponding verbal and nonverbal symbols. Animations include simple geometric shapes (e.g., filled circles, squares) moving in semantically meaningful ways. For example, a rectangle bending under the implied weight of a large square denotes "heaviness." We report normative data for matching words and images to these target animations. In a second norming study, participants rated target animations across a range of semantic dimensions (e.g., valence, dominance). In a third study, we normed a set of concepts familiar to American English speakers but lacking verbal labels (e.g., the feeling of a Sunday evening). We describe how these tools may be used to assess human symbolic processing and identify asymbolic deficits across the span of human development.
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.