ArticlePloS one2024
The label-feedback effect is influenced by target category in visual search.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The label-feedback hypothesis states that language can modulate visual processing. In particular, hearing or reading aloud target names (labels) speeds up performance in visual search tasks by facilitating target detection and such advantage is often measured against a condition where the target name is shown visually (i.e. via the same modality as the search task). The current study conceptually complements and expands previous investigations. The effect of a multimodal label presentation (i.e., an audio+visual, AV, priming label) in a visual search task is compared to that of a multimodal (i.e. white noise+visual, NV, label) and two unimodal (i.e. audio, A, label or visual, V, label) control conditions. The name of a category (i.e. a label at the superordinate level) is used as a cue, instead of the more commonly used target name (a basic level label), with targets belonging to one of three categories: garments, improper weapons, and proper weapons. These categories vary for their structure, improper weapons being an ad hoc category (i.e. context-dependent), unlike proper weapons and garments. The preregistered analysis shows an overall facilitation of visual search performance in the AV condition compared to the NV condition, confirming that the label-feedback effect may not be explained away by the effects of multimodal stimulation only and that it extends to superordinate labels. Moreover, exploratory analyses show that such facilitation is driven by the garments and proper weapons categories, rather than improper weapons. Thus, the superordinate label-feedback effect is modulated by the structural properties of a category. These findings are consistent with the idea that the AV condition prompts an "up-regulation" of the label, a requirement for enhancing the label's beneficial effects, but not when the label refers to an ad hoc category. They also highlight the peculiar status of the category of improper weapons and set it apart from that of proper weapons.
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.