Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36583910›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2022

Idiosyncratic viewing patterns of social scenes reflect individual preferences.

Adam M Berlijn, Lea K Hildebrandt, Matthias Gamer

Open access · goldAbstract 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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Adam M BerlijnDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Lea K HildebrandtDepartment of Psychology, Julius-Maximilians-University Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Matthias GamerDepartment of Psychology, Julius-Maximilians-University Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
University of Würzburg · DEHochschule Düsseldorf University of Applied Sciences · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In general, humans preferentially look at conspecifics in naturalistic images. However, such group-based effects might conceal systematic individual differences concerning the preference for social information. Here, we investigated to what degree fixations on social features occur consistently within observers and whether this preference generalizes to other measures of social prioritization in the laboratory as well as the real world. Participants carried out a free viewing task, a relevance taps task that required them to actively select image regions that are crucial for understanding a given scene, and they were asked to freely take photographs outside the laboratory that were later classified regarding their social content. We observed stable individual differences in the fixation and active selection of human heads and faces that were correlated across tasks and partly predicted the social content of self-taken photographs. Such relationship was not observed for human bodies indicating that different social elements need to be dissociated. These findings suggest that idiosyncrasies in the visual exploration and interpretation of social features exist and predict real-world behavior. Future studies should further characterize these preferences and elucidate how they shape perception and interpretation of social contexts in healthy participants and patients with mental disorders that affect social functioning.

Indexed as

AttentionFixation, OcularHumans

Identifiers

PMID36583910
PMCPMC9807181
OpenAlexW4313410064

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.