Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34816390›Full record

SynthesisPsychonomic bulletin & review2022

Is probabilistic cuing of visual search an inflexible attentional habit? A meta-analytic review.

Tamara Giménez-Fernández, David Luque, David R Shanks, Miguel A Vadillo

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2022. 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

4 authors.

Tamara Giménez-FernándezDepartmento de Psicología Básica, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
David LuqueDepartmento de Psicología Básica, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
David R ShanksDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Miguel A VadilloDepartmento de Psicología Básica, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. miguel.vadillo@uam.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8421-816X

Funding

Consejería de Educación e Investigación 2020-5A/SOC-19723Economic and Social Research Council ES/P009522/1Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación PSI2017-85159-P
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In studies on probabilistic cuing of visual search, participants search for a target among several distractors and report some feature of the target. In a biased stage the target appears more frequently in one specific area of the search display. Eventually, participants become faster at finding the target in that rich region compared to the sparse region. In some experiments, this stage is followed by an unbiased stage, where the target is evenly located across all regions of the display. Despite this change in the spatial distribution of targets, search speed usually remains faster when the target is located in the previously rich region. The persistence of the bias even when it is no longer advantageous has been taken as evidence that this phenomenon is an attentional habit. The aim of this meta-analysis was to test whether the magnitude of probabilistic cuing decreases from the biased to the unbiased stage. A meta-analysis of 42 studies confirmed that probabilistic cuing during the unbiased stage was roughly half the size of cuing during the biased stage, and this decrease persisted even after correcting for publication bias. Thus, the evidence supporting the claim that probabilistic cuing is an attentional habit might not be as compelling as previously thought.

Indexed as

CuesSpace PerceptionAttentionHabitsHumansReaction TimeHabitual attentionImplicit learningMeta-analysisProbabilistic cuingVisual search

Identifiers

PMID34816390
PMCPMC9038896

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.