ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance2024
What drives the automatic retrieval of real-world object size knowledge?
Article in Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Centre-of-Mass Confounds Contribute to Familiar Size Stroop Effects with Boger and Firestone's 'Visual Anagrams'.Journal of cognition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Real-world object size is a behaviorally relevant object property that is automatically retrieved when viewing object images: participants are faster to indicate the bigger of two object images when this object is also bigger in the real world. What drives this size Stroop effect? One possibility is that it reflects the automatic retrieval of real-world size after objects are recognized at the basic level (e.g., recognizing an object as a plane activates large real-world size). An alternative possibility is that the size Stroop effect is driven by automatic associations between low-/mid-level visual features (e.g., rectilinearity) and real-world size, bypassing object recognition. Here, we tested both accounts. In Experiment 1, objects were displayed upright and inverted, slowing down recognition while equating visual features. Inversion strongly reduced the Stroop effect, indicating that object recognition contributed to the Stroop effect. Independently of inversion, however, trial-wise differences in rectilinearity also contributed to the Stroop effect. In Experiment 2, the Stroop effect was compared between manmade objects (for which rectilinearity was associated with size) and animals (no association between rectilinearity and size). The Stroop effect was larger for animals than for manmade objects, indicating that rectilinear feature differences were not necessary for the Stroop effect. Finally, in Experiment 3, unrecognizable "texform" objects that maintained size-related visual feature differences were displayed upright and inverted. Results revealed a small Stroop effect for both upright and inverted conditions. Altogether, these results indicate that the size Stroop effect partly follows object recognition with an additional contribution from visual feature associations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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.