ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2020
Opposing effects of stimulus-driven and memory-driven attention in visual search.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Congruent audiovisual stimulation drives efficient guidance of attention by memory-irrelevant features.Cognitive processing · 2026Article
- Effects of color-flavor association on visual search process for reference pictures on beverage packaging: behavioral, electrophysiological, and causal mechanisms.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Comparing the temporal dynamics and efficacy of task-relevant and task-irrelevant memory-driven attention.Cognitive processing · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
When one searches for a specific target in a cluttered visual scene, a perceptually salient stimulus or a stimulus that matches working memory's contents is prioritized for attentional selection. In the present study, we aimed at clarifying under which circumstance stimulus-driven attention or memory-driven attention is more pronounced. We hypothesized that one crucial factor affecting stimulus-driven versus memory-driven attention is how a concurrent visual search task is performed. To address this issue, we employed two visual search tasks whose underlying mechanisms are known to be different: Landolt-C search and orientation feature search. One group of participants performed visual search tasks containing a memory-matching stimulus, and the other group conducted searches in the presence of a salient singleton distractor. The results showed that the effects of stimulus-driven and memory-driven attention differed, depending on the cognitive mechanisms underlying the visual search tasks. A memory-matching stimulus captured attention when participants performed the Landolt-C search, whereas this capture was diminished under feature search. In contrast, capture by the salient singleton distractor was found only under feature search. These results demonstrate that the nature of the underlying visual search tasks is an important factor for observing stimulus-driven versus memory-driven attention. Our results also provide a potential solution to resolve current debate regarding memory-driven attention in visual search.
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.