ArticlePloS one2024
Updating the remembered position of targets following passive lateral translation.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spatial updating, the ability to track the egocentric position of surrounding objects during self-motion, is fundamental to navigating around the world. However, people make systematic errors when updating the position of objects after linear self-motion. To determine the source of these errors, we measured errors in remembered target position with or without passive lateral translations. Self-motion was presented both visually (simulated in virtual reality) and physically (on a 6-DOF motion platform). People underestimated targets' eccentricity in general even when just asked to remember them for a few seconds (5-7 seconds), with larger underestimations of more eccentric targets. We hypothesized that updating errors would depend on target eccentricity, which was manifested as errors depending not only on target eccentricity but also the observer's movement range. When updating the position of targets within the range of movement (such that their actual locations crossed the viewer's midline), people overestimated their change in position relative to their head/body compared to when judging the location of objects that were outside the range of movement and therefore did not cross the midline. We interpret these results as revealing changes in the efficacy of spatial updating depending on participant's perception of self-motion and the perceptual consequences for targets represented initially in one half of the visual field having to be reconstructed in the opposite hemifield.
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.