ArticlePloS one2019
Extrafoveal attentional capture by object semantics.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extra-foveal Processing of Object Semantics Guides Early Overt Attention During Visual Search.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2020Trial
- The fundamentals of eye tracking part 6: Working with areas of interest.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Combined conceptual and perceptual control of visual attention in search for real-world objects.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- The Visual Integration of Semantic and Spatial Information of Objects in Naturalistic Scenes (VISIONS) database: attentional, conceptual, and perceptual norms.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Fast Feature- and Category-Related Parafoveal Previewing Support Free Visual Exploration.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024Article
- Meaning maps detect the removal of local semantic scene content but deep saliency models do not.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2022Article
- Humans represent the precision and utility of information acquired across fixations.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Meaning maps capture the density of local semantic features in scenes: A reply to Pedziwiatr, Kümmerer, Wallis, Bethge & Teufel (2021).Cognition · 2021Article
- The extrafoveal preview paradigm as a measure of predictive, active sampling in visual perception.Journal of vision · 2021Review
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is ongoing debate on whether object meaning can be processed outside foveal vision, making semantics available for attentional guidance. Much of the debate has centred on whether objects that do not fit within an overall scene draw attention, in complex displays that are often difficult to control. Here, we revisited the question by reanalysing data from three experiments that used displays consisting of standalone objects from a carefully controlled stimulus set. Observers searched for a target object, as per auditory instruction. On the critical trials, the displays contained no target but objects that were semantically related to the target, visually related, or unrelated. Analyses using (generalized) linear mixed-effects models showed that, although visually related objects attracted most attention, semantically related objects were also fixated earlier in time than unrelated objects. Moreover, semantic matches affected the very first saccade in the display. The amplitudes of saccades that first entered semantically related objects were larger than 5° on average, confirming that object semantics is available outside foveal vision. Finally, there was no semantic capture of attention for the same objects when observers did not actively look for the target, confirming that it was not stimulus-driven. We discuss the implications for existing models of visual cognition.
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.