Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40157957›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Cue combination and individual differences during weight judgements using familiar and newly learned cues.

Olaf Kristiansen, Meike Scheller, Annisha A Attanayake, Emily A Bambrough, Marko Nardini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 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

5 authors.

Olaf KristiansenPsychology Department, Durham University, Durham, UK. olaf.kristiansen@durham.ac.uk.
Meike SchellerPsychology Department, Durham University, Durham, UK.
Annisha A AttanayakePsychology Department, Durham University, Durham, UK.
Emily A BambroughPsychology Department, Durham University, Durham, UK.
Marko NardiniPsychology Department, Durham University, Durham, UK.

Funding

HORIZON EUROPE European Research Council grant agreement no. 820185
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human perception is often characterised by efficient combination of sensory signals (cues). In recent studies, people could also improve precision via newly learned cues, with applications to enhance perception in healthy and clinical groups. However, it is unclear whether new cues can enhance manual object interactions. To study how new cues are used for object weight perception, people compared weights of containers. With haptic information plus the familiar visual cue of volume, participants showed precision improvements indicating cue combination. By contrast, a group of participants briefly trained with a novel visual cue to weight (line orientation) did not show improvements expected from combination. We then asked whether prolonged training (12 h) with the novel cue would promote combination, testing for significant precision gains individually in six participants. Half of participants showed combination benefits, but these were not clearly related to training, as some combined cues before training. Using an illusion analogous to the size-weight illusion, we also asked whether the novel cue would become an automatic predictor of weight: two participants were susceptible to the illusion. We conclude that weight perception is susceptible to some enhancement, but subject to training effects and individual differences that are not yet understood.

Indexed as

CuesIndividualityJudgmentLearningWeight PerceptionAdultFemaleHumansMaleVisual PerceptionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40157957
PMCPMC11954982

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.