ArticlePloS one2024
Attentional cueing: Gaze is harder to override than arrows.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reflexive priority of biological motion in attentional orienting: evidence from conflict resistance in complex visual settings.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2026Article
- Task-irrelevant human and robot head movements bias gaze in humans who follow them through virtual reality.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Pointing over gaze: how saliency, proximity, and context shape spatial attention to embodied cues.Psychological research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gaze is an important and potent social cue to direct others' attention towards specific locations. However, in many situations, directional symbols, like arrows, fulfill a similar purpose. Motivated by the overarching question how artificial systems can effectively communicate directional information, we conducted two cueing experiments. In both experiments, participants were asked to identify peripheral targets appearing on the screen and respond to them as quickly as possible by a button press. Prior to the appearance of the target, a cue was presented in the center of the screen. In Experiment 1, cues were either faces or arrows that gazed or pointed in one direction, but were non-predictive of the target location. Consistent with earlier studies, we found a reaction time benefit for the side the arrow or the gaze was directed to. Extending beyond earlier research, we found that this effect was indistinguishable between the vertical and the horizontal axis and between faces and arrows. In Experiment 2, we used 100% "counter-predictive" cues; that is, the target always occurred on the side opposite to the direction of gaze or arrow. With cues without inherent directional meaning (color), we controlled for general learning effects. Despite the close quantitative match between non-predictive gaze and non-predictive arrow cues observed in Experiment 1, the reaction-time benefit for counter-predictive arrows over neutral cues is more robust than the corresponding benefit for counter-predictive gaze. This suggests that-if matched for efficacy towards their inherent direction-gaze cues are harder to override or reinterpret than arrows. This difference can be of practical relevance, for example, when designing cues in the context of human-machine interaction.
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.