ArticleFrontiers in psychology2020
Increasing Perceptual Salience Diminishes the Motor Interference Effect From Dangerous Objects.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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.
- The impact of attentional demand on the motor interference effect induced by dangerous stimuli.PeerJ · 2026Article
- Associations between attenuated auditory p300 event-related potential and cognitive basic symptoms in young people at clinical high risk for psychosis.Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2025Article
- Event-related potential patterns of selective attention modulated by perceptual load.Brain and behavior · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Existing research has indicated that dangerous objects may conflict with an individual's prepared motor actions and thus slow responses. This phenomenon is called the motor interference effect from dangerous objects. However, its origin remains arguable. The current study aimed to preclude an alternative origin and to investigate whether the efficiency of processing a prepared response toward a dangerous object could benefit from increasing the perceptual salience of the object by painting the object red. The design used a shape categorization task to emphasize the dangerous elements of target objects and manipulated target color (gray versus red), target dangerousness (safe versus dangerous) and prime-target congruency (congruent versus incongruent). The null effect of N2 amplitudes between the dangerous and safe conditions precluded the alternative origin and suggested that the motor interference effect did not originate from response inhibition. Furthermore, the results indicated a modulation effect of the motor interference effect in different colors. The classic motor interference effect was observed in the gray target condition, but it diminished in the red target condition. The underlying cognitive processes were reflected in ERPs. More positive P2 and frontal P3 amplitudes were identified in the red target condition than in the gray target condition, which indicated that deeper feature detection was assigned to and more attentional resources were automatically recruited for the red targets than for the gray targets. Analysis of the parietal P3 amplitudes identified a similar result pattern as the mean RTs. A more positive P3 amplitude was identified in the dangerous condition than in the safe condition when the targets were painted gray. In contrast, the P3 amplitudes were identical between the dangerous condition and the safe condition when the targets were painted red. The results indicated that the increased attentional resources facilitated the evaluation of red target dangerousness and thus accelerated reactions to the red dangerous targets; the reaction speeds to those targets were close to those for the reaction speeds to the red safe targets. Detailed processes that underline these components are discussed.
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.