Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37781486›Full record

Articlei-Perception

Six ways of failing to see (and why the differences matter).

Makaela Nartker, Chaz Firestone, Howard Egeth, Ian Phillips

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in i-Perception. 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
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 50% 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. In simple but challenging search tasks, most errors are stochastic.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024
    Article
  3. When Nurses in an Emergency Situation Look for a Medical Item But Fail to See It.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    Observational
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Makaela NartkerDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1817-9048
Chaz FirestoneDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Philosophy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1247-2422
Howard EgethDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Ian PhillipsDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sometimes we look but fail to see: our car keys on a cluttered desk, a repeated word in a carefully proofread email, or a motorcycle at an intersection. Wolfe and colleagues present a unifying, mechanistic framework for understanding these "Looked But Failed to See" errors, explaining how such misses arise from natural constraints on human visual processing. Here, we offer a conceptual taxonomy of six distinct ways we might be said to fail to see, and explore: how these relate to processes in Wolfe et al.'s model; how they can be distinguished experimentally; and, why the differences matter.

Indexed as

attention to features/objectsinattentional blindnessobject recognitionperceptionvisual search

Identifiers

PMID37781486
PMCPMC10536858
OpenAlexW4387107571

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.