ArticleJournal of vision2021
A three-response task reveals how attention alters decision criteria but not appearance.
Article in Journal of vision, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- An entropy model of decision uncertainty.Journal of mathematical psychology · 2025Article
- Viewed touch influences tactile detection by altering decision criterion.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Article
- Dissociable Neural Mechanisms Underlie the Effects of Attention on Visual Appearance and Response Bias.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023Article
- The Beep-Speed Illusion Cannot Be Explained With a Simple Selection Bias.Experimental psychology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Whether attention alters appearance or just changes decision criteria continues to be controversial. When subjects are forced to choose which of two equal targets, one of which has been pre-cued, has a higher contrast, they tend to choose the cued target. This has been interpreted as attention increasing the apparent contrast of the cued target. However, when subjects must decide whether the two targets have equal or unequal contrast, they respond veridically with no apparent effect of attention. The discrepancy between these comparative and equality judgments is explained by attention altering the decision criteria but not appearance. We supposed that when subjects are forced to choose which of two apparently equal targets has the higher contrast, they tend to proportion their uncertainty in favor of the cued target. To test this hypothesis, we used a three-response task, in which subjects chose which target had the higher contrast but also had the option to report that the targets appeared equal. This task disentangled potential attention effects on appearance from those on the decision criteria. We found that subjects with narrower criteria about what constituted equal contrast were more likely to choose the cued target, supporting the uncertainty stealing hypothesis. Across the population, the effects of the attentional cue are explained as changes in the decision criteria and not changes in appearance.
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.