Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36318191›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2022

Divided attention effects in visual search are caused by objects not by space.

Cathleen M Moore, James Pai, John Palmer

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Cathleen M MooreDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
James PaiDepartment of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
John PalmerDepartment of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

Pamoic acid analogues as potent GPR35 agoinsts inducing antinociceptionR21DA029432 · NIDA · TEMPLE UNIV OF THE COMMONWEALTH · PI ABOOD, MARY E · 2009 to 2010
$412k
Testing the effects of visual field on perceptual organization as a potential source of unexplained visual dysfunction in macular degenerationR21EY029432 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI MOORE, CATHLEEN M · 2019 to 2020
$404k
NEI NIH HHS R21 EY029432NIDA NIH HHS R21 DA029432
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Divided attention effects have been observed across a variety of stimuli and perceptual tasks, which have given rise to both object-based and space-based theories of divided attention. Object-based theories assert that processing information from multiple objects is limited, whereas space-based theories assert that processing information from multiple locations is limited. Extant results in the literature are collectively inconsistent with both simple object-based theories and simple space-based theories of divided attention. Using a visual search task with the extended simultaneous-sequential method to reveal capacity limitations, we found evidence of limited-capacity processing of object properties and unlimited-capacity processing of feature contrast. We found no evidence of a separate spatial limitation. A multiple pathway processing theory can account for these and a large body of previous results. According to this theory, tasks that require object processing must follow a limited-capacity pathway and therefore incur divided attention effects. Tasks that depend on only feature contrast can follow a separate unlimited-capacity processing pathway and therefore do not incur divided attention effects.

Indexed as

AttentionSpace PerceptionHumansVisual Perception

Identifiers

PMID36318191
PMCPMC9639677

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.