Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36442045›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition2024

Perceptual similarity judgments do not predict the distribution of errors in working memory.

Ivan Tomić, Paul M Bays

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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.

Ivan TomićDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge.ORCID 0000-0001-6046-9642
Paul M BaysDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 106926
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Population coding models provide a quantitative account of visual working memory (VWM) retrieval errors with a plausible link to the response characteristics of sensory neurons. Recent work has provided an important new perspective linking population coding to variables of signal detection, including d-prime, and put forward a new hypothesis: that the distribution of recall errors on, for example, a color wheel, is a consequence of the psychological similarity between points in that stimulus space, such that the exponential-like psychophysical distance scaling function can fulfil the role of population tuning and obviate the need to fit a tuning width parameter to recall data. Using four different visual feature spaces, we measured psychophysical similarity and memory errors in the same participants. Our results revealed strong evidence for a common source of variability affecting similarity judgments and recall estimates but did not support any consistent relationship between psychophysical similarity functions and VWM errors. At the group level, the responsiveness functions obtained from the psychophysical similarity task diverged strongly from those that provided the best fit to working memory errors. At the individual level, we found convincing evidence against an association between observed and best-fitting similarity functions. Finally, our results show that the newly proposed exponential-like responsiveness function has in general no advantage over the canonical von Mises (circular normal) function assumed by previous population coding models. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Indexed as

JudgmentMemory, Short-TermHumansMental RecallVisual Perception

Identifiers

PMID36442045
PMCPMC7615806

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.