ArticlePsychological research2023
Visual memory of a co-actor's target during joint search.
Article in Psychological research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Studies on joint action show that when two actors turn-takingly attend to each other's target that appears one at a time, a partner's target is accumulated in memory. However, in the real world, actors may not be certain that they attend to the same object because multiple objects often appear simultaneously. In this study, we asked participant pairs to search for different targets in parallel from multiple objects and investigated the memory of a partner's target. We employed the contextual cueing paradigm, in which repetitive search forms associative memory between a target and a configuration of distractors that facilitates search. During the learning phase, exemplars of three target categories (i.e., bird, shoe, and tricycle) were presented among unique objects, and participant pairs searched for them. In Experiment 1, it was followed by a memory test about target exemplars. Consequently, the partner's target was better recognized than the target that nobody searched for. In Experiments 2a and 2b, the memory test was replaced with the transfer phase, where one individual from the pair searched for the category that nobody had searched for while the other individual searched for the category the partner had searched for in the learning phase. The transfer phase did not show search facilitation underpinned by associative memory between the partner's target and distractors. These results suggest that when participant pairs search for different targets in parallel, they accumulate the partner's target in memory but may not form its associative memory with the distractors that facilitates its search.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.