Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38660602›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2024

Does precrastination explain why some observers are suboptimal in a visual search task?

Alasdair D F Clarke, Anna Nowakowska, Kyle Sauerberger, David A Rosenbaum, Thomas R Zentall, Amelia R Hunt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

6 authors.

Alasdair D F ClarkeDepartment of Psychology, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7368-2351
Anna NowakowskaSchool of Psychology and Vision Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0787-4726
Kyle SauerbergerDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA.
David A RosenbaumDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA.
Thomas R ZentallDepartment of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0359-9082
Amelia R HuntSchool of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4122-9499

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How do we decide where to search for a target? Optimal search relies on first considering the relative informational value of different locations and then executing eye movements to the best options. However, many participants consistently move their eyes to locations that can be easily ascertained to neither contain the target nor provide new information about the target's location. Here, we asked whether this suboptimal search behaviour represents a specific example of a general tendency towards precrastination: starting sub-goals of a task before they are needed, and in so doing, spending longer time on doing the task than is necessary. To test this hypothesis, we asked 200 participants to do two tasks: retrieve two heavy buckets (one close and one far) and search for a line segment. Precrastination is defined as consistently picking up the closer bucket first, versus the more efficient strategy of picking up the farther bucket first. Search efficiency is the proportion of fixations directed to more cluttered regions of the search array. Based on the pilot data, we predicted an association of precrastination with inefficient search strategies. Personality inventories were also administered to identify stable characteristics associated with these strategies. In the final dataset, there was no clear association between search strategy and precrastination, nor did these correlate strongly with any of the personality measures collected. This article received in-principle acceptance (IPA) at

Indexed as

eye movementsoptimal behaviourvisual search

Identifiers

PMID38660602
PMCPMC11040237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.