ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2024
In simple but challenging search tasks, most errors are stochastic.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 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.
- Perceptual Contaminants to Assessments of Visuospatial Working Memory: The Influences of Path Clutterness and Endpoint Crowding.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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In visual search tasks in the lab and in the real world, people routinely miss targets that are clearly visible: so-called look but fail to see (LBFTS) errors. If search displays are shown to the same observer twice, we can ask about the probability of joint errors, where the target is missed both times. If errors are "deterministic," then the probability of a second error on the same display-given that the target was missed the first time-should be high. If errors are "stochastic," the probability of joint errors should be the product of the error rate for first and second appearances. Here, we report on two versions of a T among Ls search with somewhat degraded letters to make search more difficult. In Experiment 1, Ts could either appear amidst crowded "clumps" of Ls or more in isolation. Observers made more errors when the T was in a clump, but these errors were mainly stochastic. In Experiment 2, the task was made harder by making Ts and Ls more similar. Again, errors were predominantly stochastic. If other, socially important errors are also stochastic, this would suggest that "double reading," where two observers (human or otherwise) look at each stimulus, could reduce overall error rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39160388What 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.