Trial reportAttention, perception & psychophysics2016
Attentional capture for tool images is driven by the head end of the tool, not the handle.
Trial report in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Tool heads prime saccades.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Correspondence effect driven by salient visual asymmetries in integral object stimuli.Psychological research · 2020Article
- Article
- What Role Does "Elongation" Play in "Tool-Specific" Activation and Connectivity in the Dorsal and Ventral Visual Streams?Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Tools afford specialized actions that are tied closely to object identity. Although there is mounting evidence that functional objects, such as tools, capture visuospatial attention relative to non-tool competitors, this leaves open the question of which part of a tool drives attentional capture. We used a modified version of the Posner cueing task to determine whether attention is oriented towards the head versus the handle of realistic images of common elongated tools. We compared cueing effects for tools with control stimuli that consisted of images of fruit and vegetables of comparable elongation to the tools. Critically, our displays controlled for lower-level influences on attention that can arise from global shape asymmetries in the image cues. Observers were faster to detect low-contrast targets positioned near the head end versus the handle of tools. As expected, no lateralized performance bias was observed for the control stimuli. In a follow-up experiment, we confirmed that the bias towards tool heads was not due to inhibition of return as a result of early attentional orienting towards tool handles. Finally, we confirmed that real-world exemplars of the tools in the cueing studies were associated more strongly with specific grasping patterns than the elongated fruits and vegetables. Together, our results demonstrate that affordance effects on attentional capture are driven by the head end of a tool. Prioritizing the head end of a tool is adaptive because it ensures that the most relevant region of the object takes priority in selecting an effective motor plan.
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.