Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35391754›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in integrative neuroscience2022

The Ecological View of Selective Attention.

Tidhar Lev-Ari, Hadar Beeri, Yoram Gutfreund

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in integrative neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Gaze Mapping and Observational Behavior During Nasal Endoscopy.International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Costs and benefits of voluntary attention in crows.Royal Society open science · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Exogenous and endogenous spatial attention in crows.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  11. How animals discriminate between stimulus magnitudes: a meta-analysis.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology
    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

3 authors.

Tidhar Lev-AriThe Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine and Research Institute, The Technion, Haifa, Israel.
Hadar BeeriThe Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine and Research Institute, The Technion, Haifa, Israel.
Yoram GutfreundThe Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine and Research Institute, The Technion, Haifa, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accumulating evidence is supporting the hypothesis that our selective attention is a manifestation of mechanisms that evolved early in evolution and are shared by many organisms from different taxa. This surge of new data calls for the re-examination of our notions about attention, which have been dominated mostly by human psychology. Here, we present an hypothesis that challenges, based on evolutionary grounds, a common view of attention as a means to manage limited brain resources. We begin by arguing that evolutionary considerations do not favor the basic proposition of the limited brain resources view of attention, namely, that the capacity of the sensory organs to provide information exceeds the capacity of the brain to process this information. Moreover, physiological studies in animals and humans show that mechanisms of selective attention are highly demanding of brain resources, making it paradoxical to see attention as a means to release brain resources. Next, we build on the above arguments to address the question why attention evolved in evolution. We hypothesize that, to a certain extent, limiting sensory processing is adaptive irrespective of brain capacity. We call this hypothesis the ecological view of attention (EVA) because it is centered on interactions of an animal with its environment rather than on internal brain resources. In its essence is the notion that inherently noisy and degraded sensory inputs serve the animal's adaptive, dynamic interactions with its environment. Attention primarily functions to resolve behavioral conflicts and false distractions. Hence, we evolved to focus on a particular target at the expense of others, not because of internal limitations, but to ensure that behavior is properly oriented and committed to its goals. Here, we expand on this notion and review evidence supporting it. We show how common results in human psychophysics and physiology can be reconciled with an EVA and discuss possible implications of the notion for interpreting current results and guiding future research.

Indexed as

decision makingevolution of attentionlimited processing capacityoptic tectumstimulus selection

Identifiers

PMID35391754
PMCPMC8979825

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.