Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36849759›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2023

How does searching for faces among similar-looking distractors affect distractor memory?

Geoffrey L McKinley, Daniel J Peterson, Michael C Hout

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2023. 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
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  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.

Geoffrey L McKinleyDepartment of Psychology, Skidmore College, 815 N. Broadway, Saratoga Springs, NY, 12866, USA. Geoffmck59@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-9567-0100
Daniel J PetersonDepartment of Psychology, Skidmore College, 815 N. Broadway, Saratoga Springs, NY, 12866, USA.
Michael C HoutDepartment of Psychology, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prior research has shown that searching for multiple targets in a visual search task enhances distractor memory in a subsequent recognition test. Three non-mutually exclusive accounts have been offered to explain this phenomenon. The mental comparison hypothesis states that searching for multiple targets requires participants to make more mental comparisons between the targets and the distractors, which enhances distractor memory. The attention allocation hypothesis states that participants allocate more attention to distractors because a multiple-target search cue leads them to expect a more difficult search. Finally, the partial match hypothesis states that searching for multiple targets increases the amount of featural overlap between targets and distractors, which necessitates greater attention in order to reject each distractor. In two experiments, we examined these hypotheses by manipulating visual working memory (VWM) load and target-distractor similarity of AI-generated faces in a visual search (i.e., RSVP) task. Distractor similarity was manipulated using a multidimensional scaling model constructed from facial landmarks and other metadata of each face. In both experiments, distractors from multiple-target searches were recognized better than distractors from single-target searches. Experiment 2 additionally revealed that increased target-distractor similarity during search improved distractor recognition memory, consistent with the partial match hypothesis.

Indexed as

FaceFacial RecognitionMemoryModels, NeurologicalAdultAttentionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, PsychologicalRecognition, PsychologyReproducibility of ResultsYoung AdultIncidental memoryRSVPSimilarityVisual search

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.