ArticleScientific reports2025
The role of anchor objects in scene function understanding.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Spatial proximity and scene grammar: shaping spatial representations for memory-guided actions in naturalistic environments.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Throughout every day, we perform actions, and action information has been suggested to inform scene categorization. Here we hypothesise that actions also drive the hierarchical structure of many scenes, where anchor objects (e.g., stoves) predict the presence and position of local objects (e.g., pots) by dividing a scene in functionally distinct 'phrases'. Specifically, we test whether the presence of anchor objects informs scene function understanding. In Experiment 1, participants matched an action word and a scene from which we either removed an action-related anchor object (REL), an action-unrelated anchor (UNREL) or a non-anchor object (RAND). Matching performance was impaired in REL compared to UNREL and RAND. Experiment 2 measured scene function activation more implicitly by priming a lexical decision task (LDT) on action words with the same stimuli (including an inconsistent condition: INCON, e.g., "cooking" in a bathroom). LDT performance was impaired after INCON and REL compared to RAND and UNREL primes. A control experiment showed that this effect was partly but not solely due to scene categorization. The results imply that understanding scene function is most closely tied to anchor objects directly relevant for actions whereas contextual scene information is not always sufficient to give rise to this understanding.
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.