ArticleScientific reports2023
Visual attention and memory in professional traders.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Professional traders need to process a large amount of visual information in their daily activity to judge how risky it is to trade specific investment products. Despite some studies investigating the effects of display clutter on traders, visual attention and memory were never investigated in controlled experimental tasks in this population. Following a preliminary study with 30 participants, visual selective attention and visual working memory were measured and compared between two groups of 15 traders and 15 non-traders (salespeople, acting as a control group) from a large-scale banking group in three experimental tasks measuring selective attention in complex visual contexts, simulating display clutter situations (Visual search), cognitive interference (Stroop task), and a delayed recall visual working memory task. In the Visual search task, traders displayed faster response times (RTs) than non-traders for small display sets, while their performance overlapped for large sets. In the Stroop task, traders showed faster RTs than non-traders but were nevertheless affected by cognitive interference. The memory task highlighted no significant differences between the groups. Therefore, this study found an advantage in traders' attention when processing visual information in small sets with no retention. This result could influence trading activity-determining an immediate use of relevant visual information in decision making-and traders' display layout organization.
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.