Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36869218›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

The temporal cost of deploying attention limits accurate target identification in rapid serial visual presentation.

Anna R Kimata, Bryan Zheng, Takeo Watanabe, Wael F Asaad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

4 authors.

Anna R KimataDepartment of Neuroscience, The Carney Institute, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. anna_kimata@brown.edu.
Bryan ZhengThe Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Takeo WatanabeDepartment of Neuroscience, The Carney Institute, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Wael F AsaadDepartment of Neuroscience, The Carney Institute, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Attentional BlinkHumansLearningMemory, Short-TermRiversVisual Perception

Identifiers

PMID36869218
PMCPMC9984373

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.