ArticlePLoS biology2024
Presaccadic attention does not facilitate the detection of changes in the visual field.
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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
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
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.