Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39915432›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025

How expectations alter search performance.

Natalie A Paquette, Joseph Schmidt

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Natalie A PaquetteDepartment of Psychology, University of Central Florida, 4111 Pictor Lane, Orlando, FL, 32816-1390, USA.
Joseph SchmidtDepartment of Psychology, University of Central Florida, 4111 Pictor Lane, Orlando, FL, 32816-1390, USA. joseph.schmidt@ucf.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We assessed how expected search difficulty impacts search performance when expectations match and do not match reality. Expectations were manipulated using a blocked design (75% of trials presented at the expected difficulty; target-distractor similarity increased with difficulty). Expectancy was assessed by examining the change in search performance between trials with accurate expectations and easier-than-expected or harder-than-expected trials, matched for search difficulty. Observers searched for Landolt-C targets (Exp-1) or real-world objects (Exp-2). Increased difficulty resulted in reduced accuracy, increased RT and object dwell times (targets and distractors; both experiments), and reduced guidance (Exp-2). Relative to the same level of search difficulty and when expectations were accurate, harder-than-expected search reduced accuracy, RT, and target object dwell times (Exp-1). Whereas easier-than-expected search increased RT and target dwell times (Exp-1). While Experiment 2 showed somewhat muted expectancy effects, easier-than-expected search replicated the increased RT observed in Exp-1, with an additional guidance decrement and increased distractor dwell time. These results demonstrate that expectations shift search performance toward the expected difficulty level. Additionally, post hoc analyses revealed that observers who experience larger difficulty effects also experience larger expectancy effects in RT, guidance, and target dwell time.

Indexed as

Anticipation, PsychologicalAttentionColor PerceptionMotivationOrientationPattern Recognition, VisualAdultFemaleHumansMaleReaction TimeYoung AdultExpectancyGuidanceRecognitionSearch difficultyVisual search

Identifiers

PMID39915432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.