Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14747887›Full record

Trial reportExperimental brain research2004

Predictiveness of a visual distractor modulates saccadic responses to auditory targets.

Holle Kirchner, Hans Colonius

Abstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Experimental brain research, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Are somatosensory saccades voluntary or reflexive?Experimental brain research · 2006
    Article
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

2 authors.

Holle KirchnerEuropean Graduate School Neurosensory Systems, Carl-von-Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Postfach 2503, 26111 Oldenburg, Germany. holle@free.fr
Hans Colonius

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We are faster to orient our eyes toward a visual target that also produces a sound. Conversely, the response to an auditory target is prolonged if a visual distractor is presented at a spatially incongruent position. Here, participants exhibited faster saccadic reaction times when an auditory target was more likely to be presented opposite to a visual distractor than when the stimuli only rarely occurred in spatial disparity. In contrast to experiments with visual targets and an auditory distractor, a spatially congruent visual distractor did not facilitate the response to an auditory target. We interpret the results in terms of an ocular inhibition process to suppress an automatic orienting response to the location of the visual distractor. This process is shown to be modulated by the predictability of target location.

Indexed as

Acoustic StimulationAdultFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationSaccadesSound Localization

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.