ArticleScientific reports2023
The temporal cost of deploying attention limits accurate target identification in rapid serial visual presentation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Lag-1 sparing is a common exception to the attentional blink, where a target presented directly after T1 can be identified and reported accurately. Prior work has proposed potential mechanisms for lag 1 sparing, including the boost and bounce model and the attentional gating model. Here, we apply a rapid serial visual presentation task to investigate the temporal limitations of lag 1 sparing by testing three distinct hypotheses. We found that endogenous engagement of attention to T2 requires between 50 and 100 ms. Critically, faster presentation rates yielded lower T2 performance, whereas decreased image duration did not impair T2 detection and report. These observations were reinforced by subsequent experiments controlling for short-term learning and capacity-dependent visual processing effects. Thus, lag-1 sparing was limited by the intrinsic dynamics of attentional boost engagement rather than by earlier perceptual bottlenecks such as insufficient exposure to images in the stimulus stream or visual processing capacity limitations. Taken together, these findings support the boost and bounce theory over earlier models that focus only on attentional gating or visual short-term memory storage, informing our understanding of how the human visual system deploys attention under challenging temporal constraints.
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.