Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29713757›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2018

Availability of attention affects time-to-contact estimation.

Robin Baurès, François Maquestiaux, Patricia R DeLucia, Alexis Defer, Elise Prigent

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Robin BaurèsCerCo, Université de Toulouse 3, CNRS, UPS, CHU Purpan, Pavillon Baudot, 31059, Toulouse Cedex 9, France. robin.baures@cnrs.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5551-5867
François MaquestiauxLaboratoire de Psychologie, Maison des Sciences de l'Homme et de l'Environnement (MSHE) Ledoux and Institut Universitaire de France, Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Besançon, France.
Patricia R DeLuciaTexas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA.
Alexis DeferCIAMS, University of Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, 91405, Orsay Cedex, France.
Elise PrigentLIMSI-CNRS, University of Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, 91405, Orsay Cedex, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To estimate the time-to-contact (TTC) of a moving object, numerous studies have focused on the type of information or gaze strategy used by the observer. However, it remains to be determined whether and how attention could affect TTC estimation. In particular, how does TTC estimation operate when less attention is available? To answer this question, we conducted two experiments in which the participants had to perform an absolute (Experiment 1) or relative (Experiment 2) prediction-motion task, either alone (i.e., in single-task condition) or along with a secondary, visual working-memory task (i.e., in dual-task condition). In both experiments, we found that TTC estimation was superior in dual-task condition relative to single-task condition. This finding suggests that the reduction of available attention actually improves TTC estimation. We discuss possible explanations as well as theoretical implications for this seemingly counter-intuitive finding. Further research is needed to investigate if (in)attention facilitates or only shifts TTC estimation.

Indexed as

AdultAttentionFemaleHumansJudgmentMaleMotion PerceptionPhotic StimulationReaction TimeTime PerceptionYoung AdultAttentionDual taskPrediction motionTime-to-contact estimation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.