Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31387915›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2019

Probing the Neural Mechanisms for Distractor Filtering and Their History-Contingent Modulation by Means of TMS.

Carlotta Lega, Oscar Ferrante, Francesco Marini, Elisa Santandrea, Luigi Cattaneo, Leonardo Chelazzi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Predictive Distractor Processing Relies on Integrated Proactive and Reactive Attentional Mechanisms.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Carlotta LegaDepartment of Neuroscience, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Verona I-37134, Italy.
Oscar FerranteDepartment of Neuroscience, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Verona I-37134, Italy.
Francesco MariniSwartz Center for Computational Neuroscience, University of California San Diego, La Jolla CA 92093, California, and.
Elisa SantandreaDepartment of Neuroscience, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Verona I-37134, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4079-3725
Luigi CattaneoDepartment of Neuroscience, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Verona I-37134, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8905-7529
Leonardo ChelazziDepartment of Neuroscience, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Verona I-37134, Italy, leonardo.chelazzi@univr.it.ORCID 0000-0001-8566-0611

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In visual search, the presence of a salient, yet task-irrelevant, distractor in the stimulus array interferes with target selection and slows down performance. Neuroimaging data point to a key role of the frontoparietal dorsal attention network in dealing with visual distractors; however, the respective roles of different nodes within the network and their hemispheric specialization are still unresolved. Here, we used transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to evaluate the causal role of two key regions of the dorsal attention network in resisting attentional capture by a salient singleton distractor: the frontal eye field (FEF) and the cortex within the intraparietal sulcus (IPS). The task of the participants (male/female human volunteers) was to discriminate the pointing direction of a target arrow while ignoring a task-irrelevant salient distractor. Immediately after stimulus onset, triple-pulse 10 Hz TMS was delivered either to IPS or FEF on either side of the brain. Results indicated that TMS over the right FEF significantly reduced the behavioral cost engendered by the salient distractor relative to left FEF stimulation. No such effect was obtained with stimulation of IPS on either side of brain. Interestingly, this FEF-dependent reduction in distractor interference interacted with the contingent trial history, being maximal when no distractor was present on the previous trial relative to when there was one. Our results provide direct causal evidence that the right FEF houses key mechanisms for distractor filtering, pointing to a pivotal role of the frontal cortex of the right hemisphere in limiting interference from an irrelevant but attention-grabbing stimulus.

Indexed as

Transcranial Magnetic StimulationAttentionBrain MappingFemaleFrontal LobeHumansMaleParietal LobeVisual PerceptionYoung Adultdistractor filteringdorsal attention networkfrontal eye fieldintraparietal sulcustranscranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

PMID31387915
PMCPMC6750937

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.