ArticleScientific reports2024
Moving spiders do not boost visual search in spider fear.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Previous research on attention to fear-relevant stimuli has largely focused on static pictures or drawings, and thus did not consider the potential effect of natural motion. Here, we aimed to investigate the effect of motion on attentional capture in spider-fearful and non-fearful participants by using point-light stimuli and naturalistic videos. Point-light stimuli consist of moving dots representing joints and thereby visualizing biological motion (e.g. of a walking human or cat) without needing a visible body. Spider-fearful (n = 30) and non-spider-fearful (n = 31) participants completed a visual search task with moving targets (point-light/naturalistic videos) and static distractors (images), static targets and moving distractors, or static targets and static distractors. Participants searched for a specified animal type (snakes, spiders, cats, or doves) as quickly as possible. We replicated previous findings with static stimuli: snakes were detected faster and increased distraction, while spiders just increased distraction. However, contrary to our hypotheses, spider targets did not speed up responses, neither in the group of control nor in the group of spider-fearful participants. Interestingly, stimuli-specific effects were toned down, abolished, or even changed direction when motion was introduced. Also, we demonstrated that point-light stimuli were of similar efficiency as naturalistic videos, indicating that for testing effects of motion in visual search, "pure" motion stimuli might be sufficient. As we do show a substantial modulation of visual search phenomena by biological motion, we advocate for future studies to use moving stimuli, equivalent to our dynamic environment, to increase ecological validity.
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.