Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33532009›Full record

ArticleAdvances in cognitive psychology2020

Spatial Attention and Saccade Preparation Both Independently Contribute to the Discrimination of Oblique Orientations.

Samantha Parker, Andrew Heathcote, Matthew Finkbeiner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in cognitive psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. What can evidence accumulation modelling tell us about human social cognition?Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2024
    Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Samantha ParkerPerception in Action Research Centre and Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia1.
Andrew HeathcoteDepartment of Psychology, University of Tasmania, Sandy Bay, Tasmania, Australia2.
Matthew FinkbeinerPerception in Action Research Centre and Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia1.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The extent to which the preparation of an eye movement and spatial attention both independently influence performance within the same task has long been debated. In a recent study that combined computational modelling with a dual-task, both saccade preparation and spatial cueing were revealed to separately contribute to the discrimination of targets oriented along the cardinal axis (horizontal and vertical). However, it remains to be seen whether and to what degree the same holds true when different perceptual stimuli are used. In the present study, we combined evidence accumulation modelling with a dual-task paradigm to assess the extent to which both saccade preparation and spatial attention contribute to the discrimination of full contrast targets oriented along the oblique axis (diagonal). The results revealed a separate and quantifiable contribution of both types of orienting to discrimination performance. Comparison of the magnitude of these effects to those obtained for cardinal orientation discrimination revealed the influence of saccade preparation and spatial attention to be six times smaller for oblique orientations. Importantly, the results revealed a separate and quantifiable contribution of both saccade preparation and spatial attention regardless of perceptual stimuli or stimulus contrast.

Indexed as

cueingevidence accumulation modellingeye movementsoblique orientationsaccadespatial attention

Identifiers

PMID33532009
PMCPMC7839255

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.