ArticlePsychophysiology2021
Psychophysical dual-task setups do not measure pre-saccadic attention but saccade-related strengthening of sensory representations.
Article in Psychophysiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Academic Self-Pressure and Physiological Responses in Adolescents: A Pilot Experimental Study on the Moderating Role of an Escape Room-Based Physical Activity Intervention on Cognitive and Academic Outcomes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Trial
- Saccade execution increases the preview effect with faces: An EEG and eye-tracking coregistration study.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- The extrafoveal preview paradigm as a measure of predictive, active sampling in visual perception.Journal of vision · 2021Review
- Psychophysical dual-task setups do not measure pre-saccadic attention but saccade-related strengthening of sensory representations.Psychophysiology · 2021Article
- Influence of the Location of a Decision Cue on the Dynamics of Pupillary Light Response.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Visual attention and saccadic eye movements are linked in a tight, yet flexible fashion. In humans, this link is typically studied with dual-task setups. Participants are instructed to execute a saccade to some target location, while a discrimination target is flashed on a screen before the saccade can be made. Participants are also instructed to report a specific feature of this discrimination target at the trial end. Discrimination performance is usually better if the discrimination target occurred at the same location as the saccade target compared to when it occurred at a different location, which is explained by the mandatory shift of attention to the saccade target location before saccade onset. This pre-saccadic shift of attention presumably enhances the perception of the discrimination target if it occurred at the same, but not if it occurred at a different location. It is, however, known that a dual-task setup can alter the primary process under investigation. Here, we directly compared pre-saccadic attention in single-task versus dual-task setups using concurrent electroencephalography (EEG) and eye-tracking. Our results corroborate the idea of a pre-saccadic shift of attention. They, however, question that this shift leads to the same-position discrimination advantage. The relation of saccade and discrimination target position affected the EEG signal only after saccade onset. Our results, thus, favor an alternative explanation based on the role of saccades for the consolidation of sensory and short-term memory. We conclude that studies with dual-task setups arrived at a valid conclusion despite not measuring exactly what they intended to measure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.