Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35800936›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022

The Fewer Reasons, the More You Like It! How Decision-Making Heuristics of Image Quality Estimation Exploit the Content of Subjective Experience.

Tuomas Leisti, Mikko Vaahteranoksa, Jean-Luc Olives, Veli-Tapani Peltoketo, Jukka Häkkinen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Tuomas LeistiDepartment of Psychology and Logopedics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Mikko VaahteranoksaHuawei Technologies Oy (Finland) Co., Ltd., Helsinki, Finland.
Jean-Luc OlivesHuawei Technologies Oy (Finland) Co., Ltd., Helsinki, Finland.
Veli-Tapani PeltoketoHuawei Technologies Oy (Finland) Co., Ltd., Helsinki, Finland.
Jukka HäkkinenDepartment of Psychology and Logopedics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Imaging science has approached subjective image quality (IQ) as a perceptual phenomenon, with an emphasis on thresholds of defects. The paradigmatic design of subjective IQ estimation, the two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) method, however, requires viewers to make decisions. We investigated decision strategies in three experiments both by asking the research participants to give reasons for their decisions and by examining the decision times. We found that typical for larger quality differences is a smaller set of subjective attributes, resulting from convergent attention toward the most salient attribute, leading to faster decisions and better accuracy. Smaller differences are characterized by divergent attention toward different attributes and an emphasis on preferential attributes instead of defects. In larger differences, attributes have sigmoidal relationships between their visibility and their occurrence in explanations. For other attributes, this relationship is more random. We also examined decision times in different attribute configurations to clarify the heuristics of IQ estimation, and we distinguished a top-down-oriented Take-the-Best heuristic and a bottom-up visual salience-based heuristic. In all experiments, heuristic one-reason decision-making endured as a prevailing strategy independent of quality difference or task.

Indexed as

attentionheuristicsimage qualityimage quality attributesjudgment and decision-makingsubjective experience

Identifiers

PMID35800936
PMCPMC9253696

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.