Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38271460›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2024

Presaccadic attention does not facilitate the detection of changes in the visual field.

Priyanka Gupta, Devarajan Sridharan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS biology, 2024. 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

2 authors.

Priyanka GuptaCentre for Neuroscience, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India.ORCID 0000-0001-8275-003X
Devarajan SridharanCentre for Neuroscience, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India.ORCID 0000-0003-1998-9018

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Planning a rapid eye movement (saccade) changes how we perceive our visual world. Even before we move the eyes visual discrimination sensitivity improves at the impending target of eye movements, a phenomenon termed "presaccadic attention." Yet, it is unknown if such presaccadic selection merely affects perceptual sensitivity, or also affects downstream decisional processes, such as choice bias. We report a surprising lack of presaccadic perceptual benefits in a common, everyday setting-detection of changes in the visual field. Despite the lack of sensitivity benefits, choice bias for reporting changes increased reliably for the saccade target. With independent follow-up experiments, we show that presaccadic change detection is rendered more challenging because percepts at the saccade target location are biased toward, and more precise for, only the most recent of two successive stimuli. With a Bayesian model, we show how such perceptual and choice biases are crucial to explain the effects of saccade plans on change detection performance. In sum, visual change detection sensitivity does not improve presaccadically, a result that is readily explained by teasing apart distinct components of presaccadic selection. The findings may have critical implications for real-world scenarios, like driving, that require rapid gaze shifts in dynamically changing environments.

Indexed as

Visual FieldsVisual PerceptionAttentionBayes TheoremEye MovementsPhotic StimulationSaccades

Identifiers

PMID38271460
PMCPMC10810526

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.