Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41533953›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2025

Divergent roles of visual structure and conceptual meaning in scene detection and categorization.

Sage Aronson, Maria S Adkins, Michelle R Greene

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Sage AronsonBarnard College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Maria S AdkinsBarnard College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Michelle R GreeneBarnard College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human observers can recognize the meaning of a complex visual scene in a fraction of a second, but not all scenes are equally easy to recognize at a glance. What governs this variability? We tested the hypothesis that scene understanding is modulated by two distinct forms of information: visual information, defined as the structural complexity of the image, and semantic information, defined as the richness of the conceptual content of the scene. We quantified visual information using image compressibility and quantified semantic information from the complexity of human-written scene descriptions. Across four behavioral experiments, participants performed either a rapid detection task (distinguishing intact scenes from phase-scrambled masks) or a basic-level categorization task. High visual information impaired both detection and categorization, consistent with a perceptual bottleneck. In contrast, high-semantic information facilitated detection but not categorization, suggesting that conceptual richness facilitates early perceptual processes without necessarily improving recognition. These findings reveal a dissociation between visual and semantic scene attributes and suggest that top-down expectations can selectively support early perceptual processing.

Indexed as

Concept FormationPattern Recognition, VisualSemanticsVisual PerceptionAdultFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41533953
PMCPMC12743497

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.