Publication bias casts doubt on implicit processing in inattentional blindness

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 employ...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews 2022-09, Vol.140, p.104775-104775, Article 104775
Main Authors: Nobre, Alexandre de Pontes, de Melo, Gabriela Mueller, Shanks, David R.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Implicit processing
Inattentional blindness
Meta-analysis
Publication bias
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:0149-7634
1873-7528
DOI:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104775