Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35044435›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2022

Stimulus-driven visual attention in mice.

Sheridan Goldstein, Lupeng Wang, Kerry McAlonan, Mateus Torres-Cruz, Richard J Krauzlis

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Towards a neuroethological approach to consciousness.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Reward history guides focal attention in whisker somatosensory cortex.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  6. Costs and benefits of voluntary attention in crows.Royal Society open science · 2023
    Article
  7. Deviance Distraction and Stimulus-Specific Adaptation in the Somatosensory Cortex Reduce with Experience.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  8. Exogenous and endogenous spatial attention in crows.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sheridan GoldsteinLaboratory of Sensorimotor Research, National Eye Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Lupeng WangLaboratory of Sensorimotor Research, National Eye Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Kerry McAlonanLaboratory of Sensorimotor Research, National Eye Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Mateus Torres-CruzLaboratory of Sensorimotor Research, National Eye Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Richard J KrauzlisLaboratory of Sensorimotor Research, National Eye Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
National Eye Institute · USORCID · US

Funding

Visual CircuitsZIAEY000511 · NEI · NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE · PI KRAUZLIS, RICHARD · 2012 to 2025
$28.3M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA EY000511
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In primates, stimulus-driven changes in visual attention can facilitate or hinder perceptual performance, depending on the location and timing of the stimulus event. Mice have emerged as a powerful model for studying visual circuits and behavior; however, it is unclear whether mice show similar interactions between stimulus events and visual attention during perceptual decisions. To investigate this, we trained head-fixed mice to detect a near-threshold change in visual orientation and tested how performance was altered by task-irrelevant stimuli that occurred at different times and locations with respect to the orientation change. We found that task-irrelevant stimuli strongly affected mouse performance. Specifically, stimulus-driven attention in mice followed a similar time course as that in other species: The decreases in reaction times fully emerged between 250 and 400 ms after the stimulus event, and detection accuracy was not affected. However, the effects of stimulus-driven attention on behavior in mice were insensitive to stimulus-event location, an aspect different from what is known in primates. In contrast, reaction times in mice were reduced at longer delays after the task-irrelevant stimulus event regardless of its spatial congruence to the target. These results highlight the strengths and limitations of using mice as a model for studying higher-order visual functions.

Indexed as

Vision, OcularVisual PerceptionAnimalsMiceReaction Time

Identifiers

PMID35044435
PMCPMC8787543
OpenAlexW4205821363

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.