Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36854926›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2023

Attentional switching between perception and memory: Examining asymmetrical switch costs.

Caro Hautekiet, Sam Verschooren, Naomi Langerock, Evie Vergauwe

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Neural dynamics of shifting attention between perception and working-memory contents.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Caro HautekietFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Geneva, 40 bd du Pont d'Arve, 1211, Genève 4, Switzerland. Caro.Hautekiet@unige.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4797-4510
Sam VerschoorenCenter for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6391-9861
Naomi LangerockFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Geneva, 40 bd du Pont d'Arve, 1211, Genève 4, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9582-6080
Evie VergauweFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Geneva, 40 bd du Pont d'Arve, 1211, Genève 4, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7339-2370
University of Geneva · CHDuke University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Attention can be defined as a mechanism for the selection and prioritization of elements among many. When attention is directed to a specific piece of information, this information is assumed to be in the focus of attention. On a day-to-day basis, we need to rely on efficient switching between information we are holding in working memory (internal modality) and information presented in the world around us (external modality). A recent set of studies investigated between-modality attentional switches and found that there is an asymmetrical switch cost for switching between the internal and external focus of attention (Verschooren et al., 2020, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 46[9], 912-925; Verschooren, Liefooghe, et al., 2019a, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45[10], 1399-1414). In particular, participants switched on a trial-by-trial basis between an internal task using stimuli retrieved from memory and an external task using on-screen presented stimuli. A larger cost was found when switching from the external modality towards the internal modality than the other way around. The authors found that this cost asymmetry could be best explained in terms of associative interference (i.e., differences in shielding efficiency against the memory traces from the competing task set). The present study aimed to replicate the asymmetrical switch cost (Experiment 1) and investigate whether an alternative explanation in terms of stimulus strength can account for the asymmetrical switch cost (Experiment 2). Overall, the results confirm the presence of a subtle, asymmetrical switch cost, but we observed little to no contribution of stimulus strength.

Indexed as

AttentionPsychology, ExperimentalHumansMemory, Short-TermPerceptionReaction TimeAsymmetrical switch costsAttentionFocus of attentionSwitchingWorking memory

Identifiers

PMID36854926
PMCPMC10372125
OpenAlexW4322625390

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.