Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32909087›Full record

SynthesisAttention, perception & psychophysics2021

Visual selection and response selection without effector selection in tasks with circular arrays.

Robert W Proctor, Alice F Healy

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Robert W ProctorDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, 703 Third St., West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA. rproctor@purdue.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0149-8352
Alice F HealyDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, 80309-0345, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Charles Eriksen and colleagues conducted influential visual-search experiments with circular arrays for which the responses were either vocal naming or unimanual left-right switch movements. These methods have the advantages of the stimuli being equidistant from a centered fixation point and allowing study of visual selection and response selection when effector selection is not required, as in the more typical case in which responses are key presses of distinct fingers. Other researchers have used similar spatial arrangements, but with aimed movements of the limb or of a mouse-controlled cursor to study effects of stimulus identification, visual search, spatial stimulus-response compatibility, response-effect compatibility, and practice/transfer in isolation and jointly. We systematically review studies in these areas that include visual selection and response selection and execution, and examine implications of their results for the role of effector selection. Also, we illustrate that as one moves from simpler to more complex tasks, the results are consistent with a basic information-processing framework in which stimulus identification and selection of a target response location are distinct from selecting, planning, and moving an effector to the targeted location.

Indexed as

FingersMovementAnimalsHumansMicePersonalityPsychomotor PerformanceReaction TimeAttention: SelectiveGoal-directed movementsPerception and ActionResponse-effect compatibilitySpatial information processingStimulus-response compatibilityVisual search

Identifiers

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.