ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2025
Actions at a glance: The time course of action, object, and scene recognition in a free recall paradigm.
Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Revealing Key Dimensions Underlying the Recognition of Dynamic Human Actions.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- The spatiotemporal neural dynamics of action-related features underlying action recognition.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Being able to quickly recognize other people's actions lies at the heart of our ability to efficiently interact with our environment. Action recognition has been suggested to rely on the analysis and integration of information from different perceptual subsystems, e.g., for the processing of objects and scenes. However, stimulus presentation times that are required to extract information about actions, objects, and scenes to our knowledge have not yet been directly compared. To address this gap in the literature, we compared the recognition thresholds for actions, objects, and scenes. First, 30 participants were presented with grayscale images depicting different actions at variable presentation times (33-500 ms) and provided written descriptions of each image. Next, ten naïve raters evaluated these descriptions with respect to the presence and accuracy of information related to actions, objects, scenes, and sensory information. Comparing thresholds across presentation times, we found that recognizing actions required shorter presentation times (from 60 ms onwards) than objects (68 ms) and scenes (84 ms). More specific actions required presentation times of approximately 100 ms. Moreover, thresholds were modulated by action category, with the lowest thresholds for locomotion and the highest thresholds for food-related actions. Together, our data suggest that perceptual evidence for actions, objects, and scenes is gathered in parallel when these are presented in the same scene but accumulates faster for actions that reflect static body posture recognition than for objects and scenes.
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.