ArticleJournal of vision2024
Sustained attention and the flash grab effect.
Article in Journal of vision, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- Flash grab effect within the regions of modal and amodal completions.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Concurrent perception of competing predictions: A "split-stimulus effect".Journal of vision · 2024Article
- Deconstructing the frame effect.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- Contribution of low-level motion to position shifts.Journal of vision · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When a stationary target is briefly presented on top of a moving background as it reverses direction, the target is displaced perceptually in the direction of the upcoming motion (the flash grab effect). To determine the role of attention in this effect, we investigated whether the predictability of the location of the flash grab target modulates the illusion. First, we established that effect was weaker for spatially predictable targets. Next, we showed that the flash grab effect decreased for a narrower spatial spread of attention before the onset of the target and that it was smaller for left hemifield presentations than right. Finally, we demonstrated that diverting attention away from the target and the background motion decreases the flash grab effect. In the first two experiments, the decrease in the illusion could be attributed to either increased attention to the target or decreased attention to the motion; we assume that increasing attention to the target necessarily decreases attention to the motion. However, in the final experiment, the central task decreases attention to both the target and the motion. The results show a decrease in the illusion and that reveals that attention to the motion is the primary causal factor.
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.