ArticleVision research2024
Trichotomy revisited: A monolithic theory of attentional control.
Article in Vision research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distinct underlying mechanisms contribute to learning-dependent distractor rejection.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Prediction and Prioritisation: How Reward Learning Shapes Attentional Capture.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2026Review
- Measuring conscious perception interferes with the allocation of attention to distractors.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Signal suppression makes search less effortful.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
- Avoiding the dichotomy between endogenous and exogenous attention: Selective attention as an attentional priority map fed by multiple interacting attentional signals.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Review
- Statistical learning and the efficiency of visual search.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Attentional modulation of multisensory integration across the cortical hierarchy.Frontiers in neural circuits · 2026Review
- The Attention Habit II: How selection history shapes the strategic control of attention.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- Top-down preparation contributes to intertrial priming in singleton search.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Signal suppression 2.0: An updated account of attentional capture and suppression.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- What have we learned about infant visual attention in the first 25 years of the 21st century?Infant behavior & development · 2025Review
- Relating Infant Fixations to Adult Cortical Activation Patterns Using the Natural Scenes Dataset.Developmental science · 2025Article
- Characterizing individual differences in selection history bias manifested in goal-directed reaching movements.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Neural mechanisms of learned suppression uncovered by probing the hidden attentional priority map.eLife · 2025Article
- Getting a grip on visual search: Relating effort exertion to the control of attention.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
The control of attention was long held to reflect the influence of two competing mechanisms of assigning priority, one goal-directed and the other stimulus-driven. Learning-dependent influences on the control of attention that could not be attributed to either of those two established mechanisms of control gave rise to the concept of selection history and a corresponding third mechanism of attentional control. The trichotomy framework that ensued has come to dominate theories of attentional control over the past decade, replacing the historical dichotomy. In this theoretical review, I readily affirm that distinctions between the influence of goals, salience, and selection history are substantive and meaningful, and that abandoning the dichotomy between goal-directed and stimulus-driven mechanisms of control was appropriate. I do, however, question whether a theoretical trichotomy is the right answer to the problem posed by selection history. If we reframe the influence of goals and selection history as different flavors of memory-dependent modulations of attentional priority and if we characterize the influence of salience as a consequence of insufficient competition from such memory-dependent sources of priority, it is possible to account for a wide range of attention-related phenomena with only one mechanism of control. The monolithic framework for the control of attention that I propose offers several concrete advantages over a trichotomy framework, which I explore here.
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.