Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40550859›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

The role of anchor objects in scene function understanding.

Lea Alexandra Müller Karoza, Sandro Luca Wiesmann, Melissa Lê-Hoa Võ

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. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

3 authors.

Lea Alexandra Müller KarozaNeuro-Cognitive Psychology, Department of Psychology, Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich, Munich, Germany. Lea.MuellerKaroza@psy.lmu.de.
Sandro Luca WiesmannDepartment of Psychology, Scene Grammar Lab, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Melissa Lê-Hoa VõNeuro-Cognitive Psychology, Department of Psychology, Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ComprehensionPattern Recognition, VisualAdultDecision MakingFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationReaction TimeYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40550859
PMCPMC12185685

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.