Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33083991›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2021

Individual differences in attention allocation during a two-dimensional inhibitory control task.

Emily R Weichart, Per B Sederberg

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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.

Emily R WeichartDepartment of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 22904, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5535-5704
Per B SederbergDepartment of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 22904, USA. pbs5u@virginia.edu.

Funding

Air Force Research Laboratory FA8650-6770
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual attention is often through to take the form of a spotlight or zoom lens that gradually focuses on goal-relevant features of a stimulus over the course of a trial. Several lines of evidence suggest that for spatially contiguous stimuli, the spotlight naturally takes on the shape of a horizontally biased ellipse. Analyses of group-level behavior in the presence of horizontally versus vertically configured stimuli, however, potentially obfuscate an important source of between-subject variability in the early stages of attentional processing. In the current study, we used a two-dimensional flanker task paradigm and nested variants of a model of within-trial attention and decision mechanisms to investigate individual differences in spotlight shapes. To account for the influence of distractor stimuli in both horizontal and vertical positions relative to the target, we operationalized the attentional spotlight as the density function for a bivariate normal distribution within our models. Horizontal and vertical shape parameters governing the spotlight were constrained to be equal in one model variant, and were allowed to vary in the other. Within-subject comparisons of Bayesian goodness-of-fit statistics revealed a general preference for an elliptical rather than a circular spotlight. Follow-up analyses, however, demonstrated substantial variability in spotlight shapes across subjects. Although data from most subjects were best captured by a horizontally biased elliptical spotlight, we observed individual differences in the extent of the bias, with some subjects even demonstrating a circular or vertically biased elliptical spotlight.

Indexed as

IndividualityVisual PerceptionBayes TheoremHumansReaction TimeAttention: theoretical and computational modelsCognitive and attentional control

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.