Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38191757›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2024

Outlier rejection in the process of pooling.

Mincheol Lee, Sang Chul Chong

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Reappraising intuitions about consciousness.Frontiers in psychology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Mincheol LeeDepartment of Philosophy, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.
Sang Chul ChongGraduate Program in Cognitive Science, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea. scchong@yonsei.ac.kr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1901-4715

Funding

The National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) NRF-2022R1A2C3004133
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ensemble perception allows our visual system to process large amounts of information efficiently by summarizing its statistical properties. A key aspect of ensemble perception is the devaluation of outlying elements, which leads to more informative summary statistics with reduced variance and a more representative mean. However, the mechanisms underlying this outlier rejection process are not well understood. One possibility is that outliers are selectively excluded before summarization. To test this, we investigated whether only weaker items were excluded from averaging. We manipulated the encoding strength of items in a display by changing the emotional intensities of faces, the spatial location of emotional outliers, and the spatial distribution of emotional faces. We found that the response to outliers varied depending on their location. Specifically, outliers were more likely to be excluded from averaging when presented in more peripheral regions, while their exclusion was partial in parafoveal regions. In other words, outlier rejection in ensemble processing is more flexible than the supposed rigid designation of weighting against outliers. Alternatively, the results fit well with hierarchically structured pooling, during which outliers are discounted more dynamically without positing any separate selective mechanism before summarization. We propose an explanation for outlier rejection in light of a recently proposed population response model of ensemble processing.

Indexed as

EmotionsHumansEccentricityEnsemble perceptionFacial expressionOutlier rejection

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.