ArticleExperimental brain research2008
The perceptual consequences of the attentional bias: evidence for distractor removal.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- A meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging tasks associated with pseudoneglect.Experimental brain research · 2025Pooled it
- Evidence for a common mechanism of spatial attention and visual awareness: Towards construct validity of pseudoneglect.PloS one · 2019Article
- Article
- Distractor removal amplifies spatial frequency-specific crossover of the attentional bias: a psychophysical and Monte Carlo simulation study.Experimental brain research · 2014Article
- Examining the influence of 'noise' on judgements of spatial extent.Experimental brain research · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A fundamental question of attentional research concerns the perceptual consequences of attention. Spatial attention can enhance stimuli within the focus of attention relative to stimuli outside; or attention can remove the influence of distracting stimuli and other forms of external noise inside the focus of attention. It is known that both strategies apply depending on how attention is cued to a location in space. Here we asked which strategy applies in an uncued situation in which people show a spontaneous bias of attention to the left side. To measure bias, we used a gratingscales task with stimuli corrupted by pixel noise. If biased attention resulted in biased stimulus enhancement its effect should be largest when there is little noise or few distractors within the attended region, and bias should decline with increasing noise. If, however, bias caused distractors to be removed asymmetrically, larger bias should show up with noisy stimuli. We found that bias rose exponentially as noise increased, in agreement with the external noise removal model, and we found evidence that noise modified interhemispheric competition between attentional systems. Our data offer new insights into the neural mechanisms of the right-hemisphere dominance in spatial and attentional tasks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.