ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2022
Behavior in a visual search task with moving dot stimuli.
Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Understanding the neuronal mechanisms underlying the processing of visual attention requires a well-designed behavioral task that allows investigators to clearly describe the behavioral effects of attention. Here, we introduce a behavioral paradigm in which one, two or four moving dot stimuli are used in a visual search paradigm that includes two additional attentional conditions. Two animals were trained to make a saccade to a target (a dot patch with net rightward motion) and hold central fixation if no target was present. To implement covert visual attention, we included trials in which a 100% valid spatial cue appeared and trials in which the color of the fixation point indicated, with 100% validity, which of four colored dot patches the animals should attend to. We analyzed the behavior in terms of reaction times and signal detection theory metrics d-prime (representing sensitivity) and criteria. In both animals, we found that reaction times were greater for larger set-sizes and that the introduction of an attentional cue reduced the reaction times substantially. We also found that both animals showed increases in criteria, but no change in sensitivity, as set-size increased and the attentional cues led to an increase in sensitivity, with only some change in criteria. Our results illustrate how the animals perform this task and imply that both animals chose similar strategies. Importantly, this will allow future neurophysiological studies to probe not only the effects of attention, but will give the possibility of seeing whether different neural mechanisms drive changes in criteria and d-prime.
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.