Trial reportPloS one2014
On the importance of relative salience: comparing overt selection behavior of single versus simultaneously presented stimuli.
Trial report in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Relative salience signaling within a thalamo-orbitofrontal circuit governs learning rate.Current biology : CB · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The goal of the current study was to investigate time-dependent effects of the number of targets presented and its interaction with stimulus salience on oculomotor selection performance. To this end, observers were asked to make a speeded eye movement to a target orientation singleton embedded in a homogeneous background of vertically oriented lines. In Experiment 1, either one or two physically identical targets were presented, whereas in Experiment 2 an additional orientation-based salience manipulation was performed. The results showed that the probability of a singleton being available for selection is reduced in the presence of an identical singleton (Experiment 1) and that this effect is modulated by the salience of the other singleton (Experiment 2). While the absolute orientation contrast of a target relative to the background contributed to the probability that it is available for selection, the crucial factor affecting selection was the relative salience between singletons. These findings are incompatible with a processing speed account, which highlights the importance of visibility and claims that a certain singleton identity has a unique speed with which it can be processed. In contrast, the finding that the number of targets presented affected a target's availability suggests an important role of the broader display context in determining oculomotor selection performance.
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.