Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27377069›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2016

Revisiting the global effect and inhibition of return.

Jelmer P De Vries, Stefan Van der Stigchel, Ignace T C Hooge, Frans A J Verstraten

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Jelmer P De VriesDivision of Experimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. vriesdejelmer@gmail.com.
Stefan Van der StigchelDivision of Experimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ignace T C HoogeDivision of Experimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Frans A J VerstratenDivision of Experimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Saccades toward previously cued locations have longer latencies than saccades toward other locations, a phenomenon known as inhibition of return (IOR). Watanabe (Exp Brain Res 138:330-342. doi: 10.1007/s002210100709 , 2001) combined IOR with the global effect (where saccade landing points fall in between neighboring objects) to investigate whether IOR can also have a spatial component. When one of two neighboring targets was cued, there was a clear bias away from the cued location. In a condition where both targets were cued, it appeared that the global effect magnitude was similar to the condition without any cues. However, as the latencies in the double cue condition were shorter compared to the no cue condition, it is still an open question whether these results are representative for IOR. Considering the double cue condition can provide valuable insight into the interaction of the mechanisms underlying the two phenomena, here, we revisit this condition in an adapted paradigm. Our paradigm does result in longer latencies for the cued locations, and we find that the magnitude of the global effect is reduced significantly. Unexpectedly, this holds even when only including saccades with the same latencies for both conditions. Thus, the increased latencies associated with IOR cannot directly explain the reduction in global effect. The global effect reduction can likely best be seen as either a result of short-term depression of exogenous visual signals or a result of IOR established at the center of gravity of cues.

Indexed as

Inhibition, PsychologicalSaccadesAdolescentAdultAttentionFemaleHumansMaleNeuropsychological TestsPattern Recognition, VisualPhotic StimulationPsychomotor PerformanceReaction TimeSpace PerceptionYoung AdultGlobal effectInhibition of returnMotor attractionSaccade averagingSaccadic landing pointsVisual selection

Identifiers

PMID27377069
PMCPMC5025513

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.