Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38228847›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2024

A limited visual search advantage for illusory faces.

Lizzie Collyer, Jake Ireland, Tirta Susilo

Open access · bronzeAbstract 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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lizzie CollyerSchool of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, Kelburn, New Zealand.
Jake IrelandSchool of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, Kelburn, New Zealand.
Tirta SusiloSchool of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, Kelburn, New Zealand. tirta.susilo@vuw.ac.nz.
Victoria University of Wellington · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The human visual system is very sensitive to the presence of faces in the environment, so much so that it can produce the perception of illusory faces in everyday objects. Growing research suggests that illusory faces and real faces are processed by similar perceptual and neural mechanisms, but whether this similarity extends to visual attention is less clear. A visual search study showed that illusory faces have a search advantage over objects when the types of objects vary to match the objects in the illusory faces (e.g., chair, pepper, clock) (Keys et al., 2021). Here, we examine whether the search advantage for illusory faces over objects remains when compared against objects that belong to a single category (flowers). In three experiments, we compared visual search of illusory faces, real faces, variable objects, and uniform objects (flowers). Search for real faces was best compared with all other types of targets. In contrast, search for illusory faces was only better than search for variable objects, not uniform objects. This result shows a limited visual search advantage for illusory faces and suggests that illusory faces may not be processed like real faces in visual attention.

Indexed as

Attentional BiasFaceIllusionsVisual PerceptionAdolescentAdultAnalysis of VarianceCuesFemaleFixation, OcularFlowersHumansMalePhotic StimulationTime FactorsYoung AdultFace detectionFace perceptionIllusory facesPareidoliaVisual search

Identifiers

PMID38228847
OpenAlexW4390906142

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.