ArticleCurrent biology : CB2019
All-or-None Context Dependence Delineates Limits of FEF Visual Target Selection.
Article in Current biology : CB, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contributions of Distinct Attention Mechanisms to Saccadic Choices in a Gamified, Dynamic Environment.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Contributions of distinct attention mechanisms to saccadic choices in a gamified, dynamic environment.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Article
- Location- and feature-based selection histories make independent, qualitatively distinct contributions to urgent visuomotor performance.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Encoding of cerebellar dentate neuron activity during visual attention in rhesus macaques.eLife · 2025Article
- Parallel signatures of cognitive maturation in primate antisaccade performance and prefrontal activity.iScience · 2024Article
- Conditional independence as a statistical assessment of evidence integration processes.PloS one · 2024Article
- Conditional independence as a statistical assessment of evidence integration processes.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Stimulus salience conflicts and colludes with endogenous goals during urgent choices.iScience · 2023Article
- Salience by competitive and recurrent interactions: Bridging neural spiking and computation in visual attention.Psychological review · 2022Article
- A conflict between spatial selection and evidence accumulation in area LIP.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Under time pressure, the exogenous modulation of saccade plans is ubiquitous, intricate, and lawful.Current opinion in neurobiology · 2021Review
- Article
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
Choices of where to look are informed by perceptual judgments, which locate objects of current value or interest within the visual scene. This perceptual-motor transform is partly implemented in the frontal eye field (FEF), where visually responsive neurons appear to select behaviorally relevant visual targets and, subsequently, saccade-related neurons select the movements required to look at them. Here, we use urgent decision-making tasks to show (1) that FEF motor activity can direct accurate, visually informed choices in the complete absence of prior target-distracter discrimination by FEF visual responses and (2) that such discrimination by FEF visual cells shows an all-or-none reliance on the presence of stimulus attributes strongly associated with saliency-driven attentional allocation. The present findings suggest that FEF visual target selection is specific to visual judgments made on the basis of saliency and may not play a significant role in guiding saccadic choices informed solely by feature content.
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.