Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35881412›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2022

Effects of cue validity on attentional selection.

Hao Lou, Monicque M Lorist, Karin S Pilz

Abstract 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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Rhythmic Fluctuations in Tactile Attention.The European journal of neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Hao LouDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Monicque M LoristDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Karin S PilzDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual attention can be allocated to locations or objects, leading to enhanced processing of information at the specific location (space-based effects) or specific object (object-based effects). Previous studies have observed object-based effects to be smaller and less robust than space-based effects, with large individual differences in their temporal occurrence. Studies on space- and object-based effects are often based on a two-rectangle paradigm in which targets appear at cued locations more often than uncued locations. It is, however, unclear whether and how the target's spatial probability affects the temporal occurrence of these effects. In three experiments with different cue validities (80%, 50% and 33%), we systematically changed the interval between the cue and the target from 50 to 600 ms. On a group level and for individuals, we examined how cue validity affects the occurrence of object- and space-based effects. We observed that the magnitude and the prevalence of space-based effects heavily decreased with reduced cue validity. Object-based effects became even more sparse and turned increasingly negative with decreasing cue validity, representing a different-object rather than a same-object advantage. These findings indicate that changes in cue-validity affect both space- and object-based effects, but it does not account for the low prevalence and magnitude of object-based effects.

Indexed as

CuesSpace PerceptionHumansReaction Time

Identifiers

PMID35881412
PMCPMC9339692

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.