ArticleScientific reports2015
Environment- and eye-centered inhibitory cueing effects are both observed after a methodological confound is eliminated.
Article in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictive remapping leaves a behaviorally measurable attentional trace on eye-centered brain maps.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2021Article
- Rapid updating of spatial working memory across saccades.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Predictive remapping gives rise to environmental inhibition of return.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inhibition of return (IOR), typically explored in cueing paradigms, is a performance cost associated with previously attended locations and has been suggested as a crucial attentional mechanism that biases orientation towards novelty. In their seminal IOR paper, Posner and Cohen (1984) showed that IOR is coded in spatiotopic or environment-centered coordinates. Recent studies, however, have consistently reported IOR effects in both spatiotopic and retinotopic (eye-centered) coordinates. One overlooked methodological confound of all previous studies is that the spatial gradient of IOR is not considered when selecting the baseline for estimating IOR effects. This methodological issue makes it difficult to tell if the IOR effects reported in previous studies were coded in retinotopic or spatiotopic coordinates, or in both. The present study addresses this issue with the incorporation of no-cue trials to a modified cueing paradigm in which the cue and target are always intervened by a gaze-shift. The results revealed that a) IOR is indeed coded in both spatiotopic and retinotopic coordinates, and b) the methodology of previous work may have underestimated spatiotopic and retinotopic IOR effects.
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.