ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2020
Late guidance resolves the search slope paradox in contextual cueing.
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.
- Can natural scenes cue attention to multiple locations? Evidence from eye-movements in contextual cueing.Frontiers in cognition · 2024Article
- Establishing gaze markers of perceptual load during multi-target visual search.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2023Article
- Guided Search 6.0: An updated model of visual search.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Visual search is facilitated by statistical learning of repeated search contexts, termed 'contextual cueing'. Repeated displays are thought to enhance attentional guidance, but this has been challenged by the absence of search-slope differences between repeated and novel displays. Here we use eye-tracking to resolve this paradox by calculating a measure of when during search the contextual cueing benefit emerges. In 24 human participants we observe typical reaction time and fixation count benefits for repeated contexts, but no slope differences between repeated and novel search contexts. Eye-tracking showed that the attentional guidance benefit emerged over time, occurring later for larger set sizes, and producing similar response time benefits for small and large set sizes. We argue that repeated and novel contexts have similar slopes because learning benefits are confined to target-adjacent regions of roughly equivalent area across set sizes. This finding rules out one of the strongest pieces of evidence against an attentional account of contextual cueing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32779117What 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.