Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37803234›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2024

What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow? modeling numerical judgments of realistic stimuli.

David Izydorczyk, Arndt Bröder

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

David IzydorczykDepartment of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany. izydorczyk@uni-mannheim.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8792-0795
Arndt BröderDepartment of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2658-4791

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft BR 2130/12-1, GRK 2277
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research on processes of multiple-cue judgments usually uses artificial stimuli with predefined cue structures, such as artificial bugs with four binary features like back color, belly color, gland size, and spot shape. One reason for using artifical stimuli is that the cognitive models used in this area need known cues and cue values. This limitation makes it difficult to apply the models to research questions with complex naturalistic stimuli with unknown cue structure. In two studies, building on early categorization research, we demonstrate how cues and cue values of complex naturalistic stimuli can be extracted from pairwise similarity ratings with a multidimensional scaling analysis. These extracted cues can then be used in a state-of-the-art hierarchical Bayesian model of numerical judgments. In the first study, we show that predefined cue structures of artificial stimuli are well recovered by an MDS analysis of similarity judgments and that using these MDS-based attributes as cues in a cognitive model of judgment data from an existing experiment leads to the same inferences as when the original cue values were used. In the second study, we use the same procedure to replicate previous findings from multiple-cue judgment literature using complex naturalistic stimuli.

Indexed as

CuesJudgmentModels, PsychologicalAdultBayes TheoremFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultCognitive modelingMultidimensional scalingNatural stimuliNumerical judgments

Identifiers

PMID37803234
PMCPMC11192830

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.