Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38391086›Full record

ArticleVision (Basel, Switzerland)2024

New Evidence for Retrospectively Cued Perception.

Bence Szaszkó, Moritz Stolte, Lea Bachmann, Ulrich Ansorge

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vision (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

4 authors.

Bence SzaszkóDepartment of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, University of Vienna, 1010 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-3173-3325
Moritz StolteDepartment of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, University of Vienna, 1010 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-2571-5013
Lea BachmannDepartment of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, University of Vienna, 1010 Vienna, Austria.
Ulrich AnsorgeDepartment of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, University of Vienna, 1010 Vienna, Austria.

Funding

Austrian Research Promotion Agency 871275
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Past research suggests a continuity between perception and memory, as reflected in influences of orienting of spatial attention by cues presented after a visual target offset (post-target cues) on target perception. Conducting two experiments, we tested and confirmed this claim. Our study revealed an elevated reliance on post-target cues for target detection with diminishing target visibility, leading to better performance in validly versus invalidly cued trials, indicative of contrast gain. We demonstrated this post-target cueing impact on target perception without a postcue response prompt, meaning that our results truly reflected a continuity between perception and memory rather than a task-specific impact of having to memorize the target due to a response prompt. While previous studies found an improvement in accuracy through valid compared to invalid cues using liminal targets, in Experiment 1, we further showed an influence of attention on participants' response time by the post-target cues with cues presented away from a clearly visible target. This suggests that visual interactions at the target location provided no better explanation of post-target cueing effects. Our results generalize prior research with liminal targets and confirm the view of a perception-memory continuum so that visual target processing is not shielded against visuospatial orienting of attention elicited by events following the offset of the visual target.

Indexed as

attentional capturecontrast gainpost-target cueingretroperceptionvisual attention

Identifiers

PMID38391086
PMCPMC10885105

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.