Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33155125›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2021

Are self-caused distractors easier to ignore? Experiments with the flanker task.

CiJun Gao, Davood G Gozli

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. 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.

CiJun GaoDepartment of Psychology, University of Macau, Taipa, Macao S.A.R., China. sb61152@connect.um.edu.mo.
Davood G GozliDepartment of Psychology, University of Macau, Taipa, Macao S.A.R., China. gozli@um.edu.mo.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Four experiments are reported that investigate the relationship between action-outcome learning and the ability to ignore distractors. Each participant performed 600 acquisition trials, followed by 200 test trials. In the acquisition phase, participants were presented with a fixed action-outcome contingency (e.g., Key #1 ➔ green distractors), while that contingency was reversed in the test phase. In Experiments 1-3, a distractor feature depended on the participants' action. In Experiment 1, actions determined the color of the distractors; in Experiment 2, they determined the target-distractor distance; in Experiment 3, they determined target-distractor compatibility. Results suggest that with the relatively simple features (color and distance), exposure to action-outcome contingencies changed distractor cost, whereas with the complex or relational feature (target-distractor compatibility), exposure to the contingencies did not affect distractor cost. In Experiment 4, the same pattern of results was found (effect of contingency learning on distractor cost) with perceptual sequence learning, using visual cues ("X" vs. "O") instead of actions. Thus, although the mechanism of associative learning may not be unique to actions, such learning plays a role in the allocation of attention to task-irrelevant events.

Indexed as

Color PerceptionCuesColorConditioning, ClassicalHumansLearningReaction TimeAssociative learningFlanker taskForward modelIdeomotor theorySensory attenuationSensory preactivationVisual attention

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.