ArticleActa psychologica2018
Attention capture, processing speed, and inattentional blindness.
Article in Acta psychologica, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Individual differences in inattentional blindness.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2024Pooled it
- Subdomains of executive function correlate with accuracy on a change detection task.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Previous theories of inattentional blindness (IB; a phenomenon of observers failing to notice a salient but unexpected event when attention is already occupied) have suggested that an unexpected object reaches conscious awareness when: 1) the location of the unexpected object and attention align, and 2) the unexpected object undergoes sufficient processing. Moreover, it is expected that the same factors that influence the allocation of observers' attention in attention capture studies influence what reaches conscious awareness in IB studies. We explored the degree to which individual differences in susceptibility to attention capture and processing speed are important predictors of IB. One hundred forty-six participants (from Study 1 of Roque, Wright, & Boot, 2016) completed four classic attention (implicit) capture tasks designed to assess stimulus-driven and contingent capture. Following the completion of these capture tasks, participants completed a sustained IB (multiple object tracking) task where an unexpected event appeared during the final critical trial. Indices of stimulus-driven and contingent capture were derived from the capture tasks, and a measure of processing speed was derived from aggregating reaction times from the three speed-based capture tasks. Surprisingly, results of logistic regression analyses revealed no relationship between measures of implicit and explicit capture (noticing the unexpected event). However, consistent with the a priori hypothesis, processing speed did predict IB. Findings suggest that attention capture is unrelated to the noticing of an unexpected stimulus, but efficient encoding and recognition of a stimulus is an important factor.
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.