Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Two recent meta-analyses on inattentional blindness (Kreitz, Pugnaghi, & Memmert, 2020; Nobre et al., 2020) concluded that objects can be processed implicitly even when attention is directed elsewhere. However, signs of publication bias are evident in both of these meta-analyses. Here, we employed multiple tools to correct for publication bias in the data aggregated in those meta-analyses. Analyses using the Precision-Effect Test (PET) and robust Bayesian meta-analysis (RoBMA) suggest that the estimates in the original meta-analyses were inflated, together with strong evidence of publication bias. Indeed, the data are consistent with no overall implicit effects. We suggest that more evidence, particularly from well-powered pre-registered experiments, is needed before solid conclusions can be drawn regarding implicit processing during inattentional blindness.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104775 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!