ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2016
Automaticity of phasic alertness: Evidence for a three-component model of visual cueing.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- On the rigidity of the preparation effect.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Readiness for Perception and Action: Towards a More Mechanistic Understanding of Phasic Alertness.Journal of cognition · 2025Article
- Warning signals only support the first action in a sequence.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2023Article
- Phasic Alertness is Unaffected by the Attentional Set for Orienting.Journal of cognition · 2022Article
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
Abstract
The automaticity of phasic alertness is investigated using the attention network test. Results show that the cueing effect from the alerting cue-double cue-is strongly enhanced by the task relevance of visual cues, as determined by the informativeness of the orienting cue-single cue-that is being mixed (80 % vs. 50 % valid in predicting where the target will appear). Counterintuitively, the cueing effect from the alerting cue can be negatively affected by its visibility, such that masking the cue from awareness can reveal a cueing effect that is otherwise absent when the cue is visible. Evidently, then, top-down influences-in the form of contextual relevance and cue awareness-can have opposite influences on the cueing effect from the alerting cue. These findings lead us to the view that a visual cue can engage three components of attention-orienting, alerting, and inhibition-to determine the behavioral cueing effect. We propose that phasic alertness, particularly in the form of specific response readiness, is regulated by both internal, top-down expectation and external, bottom-up stimulus properties. In contrast to some existing views, we advance the perspective that phasic alertness is strongly tied to temporal orienting, attentional capture, and spatial orienting. Finally, we discuss how translating attention research to clinical applications would benefit from an improved ability to measure attention. To this end, controlling the degree of intraindividual variability in the attentional components and improving the precision of the measurement tools may prove vital.
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.