ReviewCortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior2018
Habitual versus goal-driven attention.
Review in Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
72 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Is probabilistic cuing of visual search an inflexible attentional habit? A meta-analytic review.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2022Pooled it
- Learning how: A "mindless" procedure alone gives rise to contextual cueing-A weakly supervised connectionist model of statistical context learning in visual search.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Review
- Distinct underlying mechanisms contribute to learning-dependent distractor rejection.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Guidance of attention by statistical learning when multiple guidance mechanisms compete.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Temporal dynamics of adapting to novel contexts during the generalization of learned spatial suppression.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Spatial statistical learning of task relevance, rather than stimulus prevalence, improves visual working memory recall.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- The Attention Habit II: How selection history shapes the strategic control of attention.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- Top-down preparation contributes to intertrial priming in singleton search.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Spatial regularities in a closed-loop audiovisual search task bias subsequent free-viewing behavior.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Statistical learning of target location guides attention proactively.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Differential Modulation of Attention by Aversive Associative and Statistical Learning in Distinct Visual Search Modes.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Location probability learning in visual search of targets with low prevalence.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Object spatial certainty as a measure of spatial variability and its influence on attention.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Memory-guided perception is shaped by dynamic two-stage theta- and alpha-mediated retrieval.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2025Article
- When perception meets grief: how the brain reconstructs person networks in response to absence.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2025Article
- Social and non-social directional cues differentially orient attention by learned habit.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- Reward History and Statistical Learning Independently Impact Attention Search: An ERP Study.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Reduced contextual uncertainty facilitates learning what to attend to and what to ignore.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Article
- Intermixed levels of visual search difficulty produce asymmetric probability learning.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Article
- Terms of debate: Consensus definitions to guide the scientific discourse on visual distraction.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Review
12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Recent research has expanded the list of factors that control spatial attention. Beside current goals and perceptual salience, statistical learning, reward, motivation and emotion also affect attention. But do these various factors influence spatial attention in the same manner, as suggested by the integrated framework of attention, or do they target different aspects of spatial attention? Here I present evidence that the control of attention may be implemented in two ways. Whereas current goals typically modulate where in space attention is prioritized, search habits affect how one moves attention in space. Using the location probability learning paradigm, I show that a search habit forms when people frequently find a visual search target in one region of space. Attentional cuing by probability learning differs from that by current goals. Probability cuing is implicit and persists long after the probability cue is no longer valid. Whereas explicit goal-driven attention codes space in an environment-centered reference frame, probability cuing is viewer-centered and is insensitive to secondary working memory load and aging. I propose a multi-level framework that separates the source of attentional control from its implementation. Similar to the integrated framework, the multi-level framework considers current goals, perceptual salience, and selection history as major sources of attentional control. However, these factors are implemented in two ways, controlling where spatial attention is allocated and how one shifts attention in space.
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.