ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022
Effects of exogenous and endogenous cues on attentional orienting in deaf adults.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Research of visual attention networks in deaf individuals: a systematic review.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Pooled it
- Avoiding the dichotomy between endogenous and exogenous attention: Selective attention as an attentional priority map fed by multiple interacting attentional signals.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Review
- The impact of action video game experience on visual selective attention in deaf middle school students.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Investigating the crowding effect on letters and symbols in deaf adults.Scientific reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adults who are deaf have been shown to have better visual attentional orienting than those with typical hearing, especially when the target is located in the periphery of the visual field. However, most studies in this population have assessed exogenous visual attention orienting (bottom-up processing of external cues) rather than endogenous visual attention orienting (top-down processing of internal cues). We used a target detection task to assess both types of visual attention orienting. A modified cue-target paradigm was adopted to assess the facilitation effects of exogenous and endogenous cues during short and long inter-stimulus intervals (ISI), using a 2 (Group: deaf/typically hearing) * 2 (Location: central/peripheral) * 2 (Cue Type: exogenous/endogenous) mixed factorial design. ANOVAs showed that both exogenous cues and endogenous cues can facilitate deaf adults' visual attentional orienting, and the facilitation effect of exogenous cues on attention orienting was significantly stronger for deaf participants than hearing participants. When the ISI was long, the effect was significantly stronger when the exogenous cue appeared in the periphery of the visual field. In the periphery, deaf adults benefited most from exogenous cues, whereas hearing adults benefited most from endogenous cues. The results suggest that not only exogenous cues but also endogenous cues can facilitate deaf adults' visual attentional orienting. However, the effect of exogenous cues appears to be greater, especially when the stimulus appears in the peripheral visual field.
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.