ArticleCognition2021
Oculomotor feedback rapidly reduces overt attentional capture.
Article in Cognition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Attention Habit II: How selection history shapes the strategic control of attention.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- Signal suppression 2.0: An updated account of attentional capture and suppression.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- Getting a grip on visual search: Relating effort exertion to the control of attention.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Review
- High visual salience of alert signals can lead to a counterintuitive increase of reaction times.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Trichotomy revisited: A monolithic theory of attentional control.Vision research · 2024Article
- Rethinking Distraction.Visual cognition · 2024Article
- Oculomotor suppression of abrupt onsets versus color singletons.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2023Article
- This is a test: Oculomotor capture when the experiment keeps score.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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
People often have limited awareness of the extent to which their attention is captured by salient-but-irrelevant stimuli. In the present study, we examined how providing feedback concerning the frequency of oculomotor capture by such stimuli modulates the control of attention. Our results show that the provision of oculomotor feedback produces a rapid and dramatic decrease in the frequency of distractor fixations. Further probing of this reduction in oculomotor capture by time to fixate the first stimulus revealed further insights into the nature of this experience-dependent effect. A higher frequency of relatively slow fixation latencies was observed in the feedback group, with such responses being generally less prone to capture, reflecting a speed-accuracy tradeoff. Fixations with slower latencies were also associated with a reduced frequency of oculomotor capture in the feedback group, whereas the fastest responses were almost exclusively stimulus-driven across participants and unaffected by feedback. These effects of feedback persisted when feedback was removed and they generalized to novel stimuli. Our findings suggest that, without any instruction concerning how to use the feedback, the oculomotor system defaults to delaying saccadic responses to allow more time for goal-directed influences on selection to come online, reflecting a history-dependent shift in oculomotor processing.
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.