Trial reportAttention, perception & psychophysics2020
In search of exogenous feature-based attention.
Trial report in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pre-stimulus activities affect subsequent visual processing: Empirical evidence and potential neural mechanisms.Brain and behavior · 2025Review
- Exogenous temporal attention varies with temporal uncertainty.Journal of vision · 2023Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Visual attention prioritizes the processing of sensory information at specific spatial locations (spatial attention; SA) or with specific feature values (feature-based attention; FBA). SA is well characterized in terms of behavior, brain activity, and temporal dynamics-for both top-down (endogenous) and bottom-up (exogenous) spatial orienting. FBA has been thoroughly studied in terms of top-down endogenous orienting, but much less is known about the potential of bottom-up exogenous influences of FBA. Here, in four experiments, we adapted a procedure used in two previous studies that reported exogenous FBA effects, with the goal of replicating and expanding on these findings, especially regarding its temporal dynamics. Unlike the two previous studies, we did not find significant effects of exogenous FBA. This was true (1) whether accuracy or RT was prioritized as the main measure, (2) with precues presented peripherally or centrally, (3) with cue-to-stimulus ISIs of varying durations, (4) with four or eight possible target locations, (5) at different meridians, (6) with either brief or long stimulus presentations, (7) and with either fixation contingent or noncontingent stimulus displays. In the last experiment, a postexperiment participant questionnaire indicated that only a small subset of participants, who mistakenly believed the irrelevant color of the precue indicated which stimulus was the target, exhibited benefits for valid exogenous FBA precues. Overall, we conclude that with the protocol used in the studies reporting exogenous FBA, the exogenous stimulus-driven influence of FBA is elusive at best, and that FBA is primarily a top-down, goal-driven process.
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.