ArticleScientific reports2023
The impact of different distractions on outdoor visual search and object memory.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. 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.
- Interruption in visual search: a systematic review.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Pooled it
- Goal orientation shifts attentional focus and impairs reward-motivated memory.Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Knowing where to go: Spatial memory guides eye and body movements in a naturalistic visual search task.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- Using a flashlight-contingent window paradigm to investigate visual search and object memory in virtual reality and on computer screens.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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We investigated whether and how different types of search distractions affect visual search behavior and target memory while participants searched in a real-world environment. They searched either undistracted (control condition), listened to a podcast (auditory distraction), counted down aloud at intervals of three while searching (executive working memory load), or were forced to stop the search on half of the trials (time pressure). In line with findings from laboratory settings, participants searched longer but made fewer errors when the target was absent than when it was present, regardless of distraction condition. Furthermore, compared to the auditory distraction condition, the executive working memory load led to higher error rates (but not longer search times). In a surprise memory test after the end of the search tasks, recognition was better for previously present targets than for absent targets. Again, this was regardless of the previous distraction condition, although significantly fewer targets were remembered by the participants in the executive working memory load condition than by those in the control condition. The findings suggest that executive working memory load, but likely not auditory distraction and time pressure affected visual search performance and target memory in a real-world environment.
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.