ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2021
The impact of newly self-associated pictorial and letter-based stimuli in attention holding.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Self-Relevance Attenuates Emotion-Induced Blindness Across Individual, Relational, and Collective Levels.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Comprehensive Dataset for Investigating the Structure of Self-Bias.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Self-Prioritization Reconsidered: Scrutinizing Three Claims.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2023Article
- Does an experimentally induced self-association elicit affective self-prioritisation?Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2023Article
- Self-relevance and the activation of attentional networks.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2023Article
- Self-prioritization with unisensory and multisensory stimuli in a matching task.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Familiar self-associated stimuli such as one's own name and face are more efficient in guiding attention than other-associated stimuli. Remarkably, a short association of geometric shapes to the self versus others is sufficient to induce prioritization of the self- (vs. other-) associated shape in a matching task. Replications with other tasks measuring different stages of information processing, however, produced mixed results. It thus remains unclear whether the effect can be attributed to the newly associated stimulus alone. Therefore, in Study 1 (N = 28), we implemented the matching task and additionally compared the effectiveness of familiar versus newly self-associated stimuli with that of stranger-related stimuli to hold attention as cues in a dot-probe task. The self and the stranger were either represented by familiar labels ("I" vs. "stranger"), newly associated shapes, or shape-label pairs. In Study 2 (N = 31), participants associated nonwords to themselves and a stranger to compare the attentional impact of familiar and new self-associated letter combinations. Thus, we addressed the potential limitation due to modality present in former studies-which used mostly pictorial stimuli as new representations and letter combinations as familiar representations. Across both studies, in the dot-probe task, responses were faster towards targets following the self-associated stimuli compared with stranger-associated stimuli but only when familiar representations were used. Responses in the matching task were faster when confirming the correct self-associated pair. The results suggest that, under conditions of attentional competition, the prioritization of self-associated compared with other-associated cues does not generalize to newly associated stimuli.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34426930What 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.