Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39110584›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2024

Consistent metacognitive efficiency and variable response biases in peripheral vision.

Joseph Pruitt, J D Knotts, Brian Odegaard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 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. Article
  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

3 authors.

Joseph PruittUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
J D KnottsDartmouth College Hanover, NH, USA.
Brian OdegaardUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Across the visual periphery, perceptual and metacognitive abilities differ depending on the locus of visual attention, the location of peripheral stimulus presentation, the task design, and many other factors. In this investigation, we aimed to illuminate the relationship between attention and eccentricity in the visual periphery by estimating perceptual sensitivity, metacognitive sensitivity, and response biases across the visual field. In a 2AFC detection task, participants were asked to determine whether a signal was present or absent at one of eight peripheral locations (±10°, 20°, 30°, and 40°), using either a valid or invalid attentional cue. As expected, results revealed that perceptual sensitivity declined with eccentricity and was modulated by attention, with higher sensitivity on validly cued trials. Furthermore, a significant main effect of eccentricity on response bias emerged, with variable (but relatively unbiased) c'a values from 10° to 30°, and conservative c'a values at 40°. Regarding metacognitive sensitivity, significant main effects of attention and eccentricity were found, with metacognitive sensitivity decreasing with eccentricity, and decreasing in the invalid cue condition. Interestingly, metacognitive efficiency, as measured by the ratio of meta-d'a/d'a, was not modulated by attention or eccentricity. Overall, these findings demonstrate (1) that in some circumstances, observers have surprisingly robust metacognitive insights into how performance changes across the visual field and (2) that the periphery may be subject to variable detection biases that are contingent on the exact location in peripheral space.

Indexed as

AttentionCuesMetacognitionPhotic StimulationVisual FieldsAdultFemaleHumansMaleVisual PerceptionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39110584
PMCPMC11314628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.