ArticleScientific reports2025
Cue combination and individual differences during weight judgements using familiar and newly learned cues.
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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
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
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.