Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30356170›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2018

Target-distractor competition cannot be resolved across a saccade.

Kiki Arkesteijn, Jeroen B J Smeets, Mieke Donk, Artem V Belopolsky

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Visual information is required to reduce the global effect.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2020
    Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Kiki ArkesteijnDepartment of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. k.arkesteijn@vu.nl.
Jeroen B J SmeetsDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Mieke DonkDepartment of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Artem V BelopolskyDepartment of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When a distractor is presented in close spatial proximity to a target, a saccade tends to land in between the two objects rather than on the target. This robust phenomenon (also referred to as the global effect) is thought to reflect unresolved competition between target and distractor. It is unclear whether this landing bias persists across saccades since a saccade displaces the retinotopic representations of target and distractor. In the present study participants made successive saccades towards two saccadic targets which were presented simultaneously with an irrelevant distractor in close proximity to the second saccade target. The second saccade was either visually-guided or memory-guided. For the memory-guided trials, the second saccade showed a landing bias towards the location of the distractor, despite the disappearance of the distractor after the first saccade. In contrast, for the visually-guided trials, the bias was corrected and the landing bias was eliminated, even for saccades with the shortest intersaccadic intervals. This suggests that the biased saccade plan was remapped across the first saccade. Therefore, we conclude that the target-distractor competition was not resolved across a saccade, but can be resolved based on visual information that is available after a saccade.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAttentionBiasFemaleFixation, OcularHumansMaleMemoryReaction TimeSaccadesVisual PerceptionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30356170
PMCPMC6200742

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.