Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36269191›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2022

The effect of perceptual history on the interpretation of causality.

Michele Deodato, David Melcher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Causal Perception(s).Cognitive science · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

2 authors.

Michele DeodatoPsychology Program, Division of Science, New York University Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
David MelcherPsychology Program, Division of Science, New York University Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability to interpret spatiotemporal contingencies in terms of causal relationships plays a key role in human understanding of the external world. Indeed, the detection of such simple properties enables us to attribute causal attributes to interactions between objects. Here, we investigated the degree to which this perception of causality depends on recent experience, as has been found for other low-level properties of visual stimuli. Participants were shown launching sequences of colliding circles with varying collision lags and were asked to report their impression of causality. We found short-term attractive and long-term repulsive and attractive effects of perceptual history on the interpretation of causality. Stimuli directly following a causal impression were more likely to be judged as causal and vice versa. However, prior judgments on less recent (>5) trials biased current perception with both positive/attractive and negative/repulsive influences. We interpret these results in terms of two potential mechanisms: adaptive temporal binding windows and updating of internal representations of causality. Overall, these results demonstrate the important role of prior experience even for causality, a fundamental building block of how we understand our world.

Indexed as

JudgmentCausalityHumans

Identifiers

PMID36269191
PMCPMC9617506

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.