Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41559230›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2026

I see moving people: Expectations drive detection of biological motion in noisy point-light displays.

Piotr Szymanek, Magdalena Senderecka, Mateusz Hohol

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2026. 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.

Piotr SzymanekInstitute of Religious Studies, Faculty of Philosophy, Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Krakow, Poland. piotr.szymanek@uj.edu.pl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3240-3376
Magdalena SendereckaCentre for Cognitive Science, Faculty of Philosophy, Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Krakow, Poland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2098-5180
Mateusz HoholMathematical Cognition and Learning Lab, Copernicus Center for Interdisciplinary Studies, Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Krakow, Poland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0422-5488

Funding

Strategic Programme Excellence Initiative at the Jagiellonian University Priority Research Area 'Society of the Future'
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While biological motion processing has been extensively studied, little is known about the top-down impact of expectations in this context. We tested whether expectations about the likelihood of encountering a human walker influence the detection of biological motion in point-light displays, particularly when perceptual information is unreliable. Seventy-four participants completed a signal detection task, responding to stimuli featuring either a human walker or scrambled biological motion, each masked with one of four levels of visual noise. Participants were randomly assigned to the high or low expectations group and were told that 75% or 25% of the displays would feature a human walker, although the actual proportion was 50%. Participants in the high expectation group showed a greater tendency to respond "yes," with the largest group difference emerging at the highest level of noise. These findings suggest that expectations can bias biological motion detection, particularly under conditions of sensory unreliability. The results also support the predictive processing model of agency detection, which proposes that false-positive perceptions of (supernatural) agents arise from expectations combined with ambiguous input.

Indexed as

Motion PerceptionSignal Detection, PsychologicalAdultFemaleHumansMaleOutcome ExpectationsYoung AdultAgency detectionPredictive processingTop-down cognitionVisual noise

Identifiers

PMID41559230
PMCPMC12819453

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.