Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34216231›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2021

Time-dependent inhibition of covert shifts of attention.

Antimo Buonocore, Niklas Dietze, Robert D McIntosh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 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

3 authors.

Antimo Buonocore *Werner Reichardt Centre for Integrative Neuroscience, Tübingen University, 72076, Tübingen, BW, Germany. antimo.buonocore@cin.uni-tuebingen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3917-510X
Niklas Dietze *Human Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Robert D McIntoshHuman Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual transients can interrupt overt orienting by abolishing the execution of a planned eye movement due about 90 ms later, a phenomenon known as saccadic inhibition (SI). It is not known if the same inhibitory process might influence covert orienting in the absence of saccades, and consequently alter visual perception. In Experiment 1 (n = 14), we measured orientation discrimination during a covert orienting task in which an uninformative exogenous visual cue preceded the onset of an oriented probe by 140-290 ms. In half of the trials, the onset of the probe was accompanied by a brief irrelevant flash, a visual transient that would normally induce SI. We report a time-dependent inhibition of covert orienting in which the irrelevant flash impaired orientation discrimination accuracy when the probe followed the cue by 190 and 240 ms. The interference was more pronounced when the cue was incongruent with the probe location, suggesting an impact on the reorienting component of the attentional shift. In Experiment 2 (n = 12), we tested whether the inhibitory effect of the flash could occur within an earlier time range, or only within the later, reorienting range. We presented probes at congruent cue locations in a time window between 50 and 200 ms. Similar to Experiment 1, discrimination performance was altered at 200 ms after the cue. We suggest that covert attention may be susceptible to similar inhibitory mechanisms that generate SI, especially in later stages of attentional shifting (> 200 ms after a cue), typically associated with reorienting.

Indexed as

AttentionSaccadesCuesEye MovementsHumansReaction TimeVisual PerceptionCovert orientingSaccadic inhibitionVisual interference

Identifiers

PMID34216231
PMCPMC8354873

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.