Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35495184›Full record

ArticleVisual cognition2021

Progress and Remaining Issues: A Response to the Commentaries on.

Nicholas Gaspelin, Steven J Luck

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Visual cognition, 2021. 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. Feature-Specific Salience Maps in Human Cortex.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Nicholas GaspelinState University of New York at Binghamton.
Steven J LuckUniversity of California, Davis.

Funding

Visual Working Memory: Representation and ProcessR01MH076226 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI LUCK, STEVEN J · 2006 to 2020
$4.5M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH076226
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Luck et al. (2021) reviewed evidence that observers can learn to suppress attentional capture by salient distractors. Several commentaries were written in response to this review paper, many of which raised important and interesting issues. Here, we respond to these commentaries. Although there has been substantial progress in the attentional capture debate, there are still remaining issues that need to be addressed before the debate is completely resolved. Specifically, we summarize the need for an independent measure of bottom-up salience and better metrics of how attentional control unfolds over time. Ultimately, the field may need a more refined theoretical model of visual attention that distinguishes between attentional priority, attentional orienting, and attentional engagement.

Indexed as

attentional capturesaliencesuppressionvisual attention

Identifiers

PMID35495184
PMCPMC9053372

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.