Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36378344›Full record

ReviewPsychological research2023

Labor division in collaborative visual search: a review.

Basil Wahn, Laura Schmitz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Psychological research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Basil Wahn *Institute of Educational Research, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany. basil.wahn@rub.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0318-7160
Laura Schmitz *Department of Neurology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

Ministerium für Kultur und Wissenschaft des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen Collaborative Research Project INTERACT!
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When looking for a certain object or person, individuals often engage in collaborative visual search, i.e., they search together by coordinating their behavior. For instance, when parents are looking for their child on a busy playground, they might search collaboratively by dividing the search area. This type of labor division in collaborative visual search could be beneficial not only in daily life, but also in professional life (e.g., at airport security screening, lifeguarding, or diagnostic radiology). To better understand the mechanisms underlying this type of collaborative behavior, as well as its benefits and costs, researchers have studied visual search scenarios in the laboratory. The aim of this review article is to provide a brief overview of the results of these studies. Are individuals faster if they search together compared to alone? And if so, should they simply search in parallel, or will they benefit from agreeing on a specific labor division? How should they divide the search space, and how to communicate this division? Should a consensus be reached (target present or absent?) before ending the search? We address these and further key questions, focusing on the aspect of labor division. In conclusion, we integrate the reviewed findings into an applied context, point out which questions still remain, and put forward suggestions for future research. We hope that this review can serve not only as a theoretical foundation for basic research but also as a practical inspiration for applied research and development.

Indexed as

ChildHumans

Identifiers

PMID36378344
PMCPMC10227141

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.