ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025
Where does the processing of size meet the processing of space?
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of hand dominance on haptic and visual size comparisons.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Response Preparation and the Simon Effect: Experimental and Model-Based Analyses.Journal of cognition · 2026Article
- Associations Between Physical Stimulus Size and Vertical Response Locations.Experimental psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Previous studies revealed an S-R compatibility effect between physical stimulus size and response location, with faster left (right) responses to small (large) stimuli, respectively, as compared to the reverse assignments. Here, we investigated the locus of interactions between the processing of size and spatial locations. In Experiment 1, we explored whether stimulus size and stimulus location interact at a perceptual level of processing when responses lack spatiality. The stimuli varied on three feature dimensions (color, size, location), and participants responded vocally to each feature in a separate task. Most importantly, we failed to observe a size-location congruency effect in the color-naming task where S-R compatibility effects were excluded. In Experiment 2, responses to color were spatial, that is, key-presses with the left and right hand. With these responses there was a congruency effect. In addition, we tested the interaction of the size-location compatibility effect with the Simon effect, which is known to originate at the stage of response selection. We observed an interaction between the two effects only with a subsample of participants with slower reaction times (RTs) and a larger size-location compatibility effect in a control condition. Together, the results suggest that the size-location compatibility effect arises at the response selection stage. An extended leaky, competing accumulator model with independent staggered impacts of stimulus size and stimulus location on response selection fits the data of Experiment 2 and specifies how the size-location compatibility effect and the Simon effect can arise during response selection.
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.