ArticlePsychological research2018
Biasing spatial attention with semantic information: an event coding approach.
Article in Psychological research, 2018. 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.
- Lexical priming of space depends on how deeply you think about it.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- How does language affect spatial attention? Deconstructing the prime-target relationship.Memory & cognition · 2023Article
- Visuomotor and motorvisual priming with different types of set-level congruency: evidence in support of ideomotor theory, and the planning and control model (PCM).Psychological research · 2018Article
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
We investigated the influence of conceptual processing on visual attention from the standpoint of Theory of Event Coding (TEC). The theory makes two predictions: first, an important factor in determining the influence of event 1 on processing event 2 is whether features of event 1 are bound into a unified representation (i.e., selection or retrieval of event 1). Second, whether processing the two events facilitates or interferes with each other should depend on the extent to which their constituent features overlap. In two experiments, participants performed a visual-attention cueing task, in which the visual target (event 2) was preceded by a relevant or irrelevant explicit (e.g., "UP") or implicit (e.g., "HAPPY") spatial-conceptual cue (event 1). Consistent with TEC, we found relevant explicit cues (which featurally overlap to a greater extent with the target) and implicit cues (which featurally overlap to a lesser extent), respectively, facilitated and interfered with target processing at compatible locations. Irrelevant explicit and implicit cues, on the other hand, both facilitated target processing, presumably because they were less likely selected or retrieved as an integrated and unified event file. We argue that such effects, often described as "attentional cueing", are better accounted for within the event coding framework.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28432446What 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.