ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025
Pouring, scooping, bouncing, rolling, twisting, and rotating: Does spontaneous categorical perception of dynamic event types reflect verbal encoding or visual processing?
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
What we see encompasses not only lower-level properties (such as a ball's shape or motion) but also categorical events (such as a ball bouncing vs. rolling). Recent work demonstrates that such categorical perception occurs spontaneously during passive scene viewing: observers are better able to identify changes in static or dynamic scenes when the change involves different "visual verbs" (e.g., pouring vs. scooping), even when the within-type changes (e.g., across two different scenes of pouring) are objectively greater in magnitude. Might this occur as a part of visual processing itself, even without explicit verbal encoding? To find out, we discouraged verbal labeling via explicit instructions, a concurrent verbal suppression task, or both. In all cases, we continued to observe robust cross-event-type advantages for change detection, while carefully controlling lower-level visual features-in contrasts including pouring versus scooping, bouncing versus rolling, and rotating versus twisting. This suggests that we spontaneously see the world in terms of different "visual verbs" even without explicit verbal labeling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41023544What 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.