Differences between endogenous attention to spatial locations and sensory modalities.

J Vibell, C Klinge, M Zampini, A C Nobre, C Spence

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2017. 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.

Poking Left To Be Right? A Model-Based Analysis of Temporal Order Judged by Mice.Advances in cognitive psychology · 2018
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

5 authors.

J VibellDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. vibell@hawaii.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9937-4675

C KlingeDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

M ZampiniDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

A C NobreDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

C SpenceDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vibell et al. (J Cogn Neurosci 19:109-120, 2007) reported that endogenously attending to a sensory modality (vision or touch) modulated perceptual processing, in part, by the relative speeding-up of neural activation (i.e., as a result of prior entry). However, it was unclear whether it was the fine temporal discrimination required by the temporal-order judgment task that was used, or rather, the type of attentional modulation (spatial locations or sensory modalities) that was responsible for the shift in latencies that they observed. The present study used a similar experimental design to evaluate whether spatial attention would also yield similar latency effects suggestive of prior entry in the early visual P1 potentials. Intriguingly, while the results demonstrate similar neural latency shifts attributable to spatial attention, they started at a somewhat later stage than seen in Vibell et al.'s study. These differences are consistent with different neural mechanisms underlying attention to a specific sensory modality versus to a spatial location.

Indexed as

AdultAttentionElectroencephalographyElectrooculographyEvoked Potentials, VisualFemaleHumansMalePsychomotor PerformanceSpace PerceptionTouch PerceptionVisual PerceptionYoung AdultAttentionCrossmodalEvent-related potentialsN1P1P2P300Prior entryTactileTemporal-order judgmentsVisual

Identifiers

PMID28717820

DOI10.1007/s00221-017-5030-4

PMCPMC5603640

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.