ArticleJournal of cognition2024
Allocation of Space-Based Attention is Guided by Efficient Comprehension of Spatial Direction.
Article in Journal of cognition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of Multimodal AR-HUD Navigation Prompt Design on Driving Behavior at F-Type-5 M Intersections.Journal of eye movement research · 2026Article
- Getting LOST: A conceptual framework for supporting and enhancing spatial navigation in aging.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive scienceReview
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
Spatial navigation is supported by visual cues (e.g., scenes, schemas like arrows, and words) that must be comprehended quickly to facilitate effective transit. People comprehend spatial directions faster from schemas and words than scenes. We hypothesize that this occurs because schemas and words efficiently engage space-based attention, allowing for less costly computations. Here, participants completed a spatial cueing paradigm, and we calculated cue validity effects - how much faster participants responded to validly than invalidly cued locations - for each cue format. We pre-registered Experiment 1 and found significant cue validity effects with schemas and words, but not scenes, suggesting space-based attention was allocated more efficiently with schemas and words than scenes. In Experiment 2, we explicitly instructed participants to interpret the scenes from an egocentric perspective and found that this instruction manipulation still did not result in a significant cue validity effect with scenes. In Experiment 3, we investigated whether the differential effects between conditions were due to costly computations to extract spatial direction and found that increasing cue duration had no influence. In Experiment 4, significant cue validity effects were observed for orthogonal but not non-orthogonal spatial directions, suggesting space-based attention was allocated more efficiently when the spatial direction precisely matched the target location. These findings confirm our hypothesis that efficient allocation of space-based attention is guided by faster spatial direction comprehension. Altogether, this work suggests that schemas and words may be more effective supports than scenes for navigation performance in the real-world.
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.