Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34673989›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2022

Contrasting attentional biases in a saccadic choice task.

Ómar I Jóhannesson, Árni Kristjánsson, Jérôme Tagu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Ómar I JóhannessonIcelandic Vision Lab, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, School of Health Sciences, University of Iceland, Sæmundargötu 2, 101, Reykjavík, Iceland. oij1@hi.is.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5594-4055
Árni KristjánssonIcelandic Vision Lab, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, School of Health Sciences, University of Iceland, Sæmundargötu 2, 101, Reykjavík, Iceland.
Jérôme TaguIcelandic Vision Lab, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, School of Health Sciences, University of Iceland, Sæmundargötu 2, 101, Reykjavík, Iceland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To gain insight into how human observers select items in the visual field we pitted two attentional biases against one another in a single free choice design. The first bias is the nasal-temporal asymmetry during free choice tasks, where observers tend to choose targets that appear in their temporal hemifield over targets appearing in their nasal hemifield. The second is the choice bias found in studies of attentional priming. When observers have to select between a stimulus that shares features with a preceding target and a stimulus sharing features with previous distractors, they have a strong tendency to choose the preceding search target and this bias increases the more often the same search is repeated. Our results show that both biases affect saccadic choice, but they also show that the nasal-temporal bias can modulate the strength of the priming effects, but not vice versa. The priming effect was stronger for stimuli appearing in the temporal than in the nasal hemifield, but the nasal-temporal bias was similar for primed and unprimed targets. Additionally, our findings are the first to show how search repetition leads to faster saccades. The observed difference between the effects of the NTA and priming biases may reflect the difference in neural mechanisms thought to be behind these biases and that biases at lower levels may outrank higher-level biases, at least in their effect on visual attention.

Indexed as

Attentional BiasSaccadesBiasHumansVisual FieldsAttentionEye movementsFree-choiceNaso-temporal asymmetryPrimingSaccades

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.