ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2025
Understanding Navon: A detailed structural and conceptual analysis of a basic local-global task.
Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 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.
- Understanding Navon: Different designs of local-global tasks capture different bias effects.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When perceiving visual information, either the local parts or more commonly the global whole can dominate on a perceptual-cognitive level (local/global bias). Using hierarchical figures consisting of smaller local elements forming a larger global shape, researchers have tried to understand how this local-global bias emerges. However, despite extensive research, local-global biases remain an elusive concept (possibly partially due to inadequacies of the task design itself), with implicit assumptions untested and different effect metrics being in use. To provide conceptual clarity, this study presents a detailed description of metrics and effects (content validity) and discusses four major assumptions in the current literature. Where possible, these assumptions are tested on a basic local-global task (the so-called Navon task) across 18 datasets (> 8,000 participants). The metric reliability is tested on nine datasets (> 7,000 participants). Our conceptual reasoning attempts to disentangle the complexity of interference effects in hierarchical figure tasks and discusses a potential facilitation effect. Our empirical results most importantly indicate: (1) the independence of the biased precedence and biased interference metrics, underlining that local-global biases do not reflect a unitary construct, (2) the independence of local-to-global and global-to-local interference, and (3) a low split-half reliability for interference metrics. Based on these insights we argue for further re-evaluating the concept (and theory) of local-global biases, prioritizing research on a thorough conceptual (and theoretical) understanding of local-global tasks, a more consistent use of bias-related metrics in future studies, and a possible need for a more mechanistic approach to facilitate effective future research on hierarchical figure tasks.
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.