ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2022
This is a test: Oculomotor capture when the experiment keeps score.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Signal suppression makes search less effortful.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
- The Attention Habit II: How selection history shapes the strategic control of attention.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- Signal suppression 2.0: An updated account of attentional capture and suppression.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- High visual salience of alert signals can lead to a counterintuitive increase of reaction times.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Trichotomy revisited: A monolithic theory of attentional control.Vision research · 2024Article
- Rethinking Distraction.Visual cognition · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Physically salient stimuli are difficult to ignore, frequently eliciting fixations even when they are known to be task-irrelevant. A recent study demonstrated that distractor fixation-contingent auditory feedback was highly effective in reducing the frequency of fixations on such stimuli. The present study explores more specifically what it is about feedback that makes it effective in curbing oculomotor behavior. In one experiment, we removed the immediacy of the feedback by informing participants after each trial via textual feedback if they had fixated the distractor. A comparable reduction in the frequency of oculomotor capture was observed. In a second experiment, we only provided summary feedback concerning the frequency of oculomotor capture after each block of trials. Not only were the benefits of feedback again robustly comparable, but a benefit was observed even in the first block before any feedback had actually been presented. Simply knowing that the frequency of distractor fixations was being monitored was sufficient to substantially reduce the frequency of oculomotor capture. Interestingly, trial-level feedback predominantly reduced the frequency of capture by slowing oculomotor responses, reflecting a speed-accuracy tradeoff, whereas block-wise feedback resulted in a reduction in the frequency of capture with saccadic reaction time equated, reflecting a bona fide improvement in task performance. Our findings have implications for our understanding of the role of motivation, strategy, and selection history in oculomotor control.
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.