ArticleVision research2022
Negative cues minimize visual search specificity effects.
Article in Vision research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- How expectations alter search performance.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Why are some individuals better at using negative attentional templates to suppress distractors? Exploration of interindividual differences in cognitive control efficiency.Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance · 2024Article
- Within-Subject Manipulations Of Proactive Control Do Not Change Negative Templates Benefits: Exploring the Effect Of Reward On Negative And Positive Cues.Visual cognition · 2024Article
- Explicit and implicit category learning in categorical visual search.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2023Article
- Negative and positive templates: Two forms of cued attentional control.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2023Review
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
Abstract
Prior target knowledge (i.e., positive cues) improves visual search performance. However, there is considerable debate about whether distractor knowledge (i.e., negative cues) can guide search. Some studies suggest the active suppression of negatively cued search items, while others suggest the initial capture of attention by negatively cued items. Prior work has used pictorial or specific text cues but has not explicitly compared them. We build on that work by comparing positive and negative cues presented pictorially and as categorical text labels using photorealistic objects and eye movement measures. Search displays contained a target (cued on positive trials), a lure from the target category (cued on negative trials), and four categorically-unrelated distractors. Search performance with positive cues resulted in stronger attentional guidance and faster object recognition for pictorial relative to categorical cues (i.e., a pictorial advantage, suggesting specific visual details afforded by pictorial cues improved search). However, in most search performance metrics, negative cues mitigate the pictorial advantage. Given that the negatively cued items captured attention, generated target guidance but mitigated the pictorial advantage, these results are partly consistent with both existing theories. Specific visual details provided in positive cues produce a large pictorial advantage in all measures, whereas specific visual details in negative cues only produce a small pictorial advantage for object recognition but not for attentional guidance. This asymmetry in the pictorial advantage suggests that the down-weighting of specific negatively cued visual features is less efficient than the up-weighting of specific positively cued visual features.
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.