Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36451074›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2023

Humans trade off search costs and accuracy in a combined visual search and perceptual task.

Ilja Wagner, Dion Henare, Jan Tünnermann, Anna Schubö, Alexander C Schütz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2023. 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. Effort expectation and strategic cue use in visual search.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  3. Effort and salience jointly drive saccade selection.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 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

5 authors.

Ilja WagnerExperimental and Biological Psychology, University of Marburg, Gutenbergstraße 18, 35039, Marburg, Germany. ilja.wagner@uni-marburg.de.
Dion HenareExperimental and Biological Psychology, University of Marburg, Gutenbergstraße 18, 35039, Marburg, Germany.
Jan TünnermannExperimental and Biological Psychology, University of Marburg, Gutenbergstraße 18, 35039, Marburg, Germany.
Anna SchuböExperimental and Biological Psychology, University of Marburg, Gutenbergstraße 18, 35039, Marburg, Germany.
Alexander C SchützExperimental and Biological Psychology, University of Marburg, Gutenbergstraße 18, 35039, Marburg, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft IRTG-1901-The Brain in ActionEuropean Research Council 676786H2020 European Research Council 676786
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To interact with one's environment, relevant objects have to be selected as targets for saccadic eye movements. Previous studies have demonstrated that factors such as visual saliency and reward influence saccade target selection, and that humans can dynamically trade off these factors to maximize expected value during visual search. However, expected value in everyday situations not only depends on saliency and reward, but also on the required time to find objects, and the likelihood of a successful object-interaction after search. Here we studied whether search costs and the accuracy to discriminate an object feature can be traded off to maximize expected value. We designed a combined visual search and perceptual discrimination task, where participants chose whether to search for an easy- or difficult-to-discriminate target in search displays populated by distractors that shared features with either the easy or the difficult target. Participants received a monetary reward for correct discriminations and were given limited time to complete as many trials as they could. We found that participants considered their discrimination performance and the search costs when choosing targets and, by this, maximized expected value. However, the accumulated reward was constrained by noise in both the choice of which target to search for, and which elements to fixate during search. We conclude that humans take into account the prospective search time and the likelihood of successful a object-interaction, when deciding what to search for. However, search performance is constrained by noise in decisions about what to search for and how to search for it.

Indexed as

SaccadesVisual PerceptionHumansProspective StudiesDecision makingEye movements: *OtherVisual search

Identifiers

PMID36451074
PMCPMC9816200

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.