ArticleNature communications2025
The capacity limits of moving objects in the imagination.
Article in Nature communications, 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.
- From innovation to implementation: a case report on virtual reality for chronic pain and psychological well-being in clinical practice.Frontiers in psychiatry · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
People have capacity limits when tracking objects in direct perception. But how many objects can people track in their imagination? In nine pre-registered experiments (N = 313 total), we examine the capacity limits of mentally simulating the movement of objects in the mind's eye. In a novel Imagined Objects Tracking task, participants continue the motion of animated objects in their mind up to a pre-defined point. When tracking one object in the imagination (Experiment 1a), participants give estimations in line with ground truth. But, when imagining two objects (Experiment 1b), behavior alters substantially: responses are fit best by the predictions of a Serial Model that simulates only one object at a time, as opposed to a Parallel Model that simulates objects in tandem. The serial bottleneck is not due to response/motor limitations (Experiment 2), and is reduced - but not eliminated - by adding extremely strong grouping cues (Experiment 3). Additional studies validate that seriality is found for naturalistic occlusion (Experiment 4) and hyper-simplified physics (Experiment 5), and is not due to factors like noise or lack of motivation (Experiments S1-S3). Altogether, we find that the capacity of moving imagined entities is likely restricted to a single object at a time.
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.