Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34381401›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021

The Influence of Cognitive Load on Distractor-Response Bindings.

Tarini Singh, Torsten Schubert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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

2 authors.

Tarini SinghDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany.
Torsten SchubertDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Binding theories postulate an integration of stimulus and response features into temporary episodic traces or event files. In general, in the visual binding literature, attention is considered to be necessary to feature binding, and a higher cognitive load can lead to worse performance. On the other hand, in stimulus-response binding theories, central attention is not regarded as necessary in binding effects. A possible discrepancy between the visual feature binding findings and the findings in stimulus-response binding studies could lie in the amount of central load implemented, whereas another discrepancy was related to a specific type of process that was manipulated. In the present study, load was manipulated in three levels, such as no load, low load, and high load, and the binding effects were tested under each condition. Load was manipulated by using a secondary task, which was to be carried out simultaneously with the primary task. Additionally, the influence of targeting different working memory processes (maintenance and updating) was examined by varying the time point of the presentation of the secondary task. The results indicate that, under high load, binding effects are observed if memory contents are merely maintained, but not observed when memory contents are actively updated.

Indexed as

action controlcentral attentioncognitive loaddistractor-response bindingstimulus-response binding

Identifiers

PMID34381401
PMCPMC8350319

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.