ArticlePeerJ2024
The representation of contextual cue is stimulus-specific yet its expression is flexible.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Implicit learning of social information in contextual cueing.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Contextual cueing refers to the phenomenon in which individuals utilize frequently encountered environmental contexts, comprised of distractors, as cues to expedite a target search. Due to the conflict between the widespread occurrence of contextual cue transfer and the observed impact of changing the identity of distractors on contextual cue learning, the content of contextual cue representations remains contentious. Considering the independent nature of contextual cue learning and expression, our proposition is twofold: (1) Contextual cue representations are stimulus-specific, and (2) their expression is highly flexible. Methods: To validate the model, two experiments were conducted. Experiment 1 aimed to confirm the hypothesis that contextual cue representations are stimulus-specific. We manipulated the identity consistency of distractors within repeated scenes during contextual cue learning. Difficulty in contextual cue learning under the identity-changing condition would suggest the necessity of identity within contextual cue representation, indicating the stimulus-specific nature of these representations. Experiment 2 was designed to affirm the conclusion of Experiment 1 and explore the flexibility in the expression of contextual cue representations. This experiment comprised two phases: learning and testing. During the learning phase, participants were exposed to two sets of repeated scenes in different colors under two learning conditions: load and no-load. Working memory load was introduced to interfere with the expression to prevent it from becoming automatic. In the subsequent testing phase, the colors of the two scene sets were interchanged to impede retrieval based on identity. If both load and no-load conditions demonstrate similar levels of contextual cue effects during the testing phase, it implies the flexibility in the expression of contextual cue representations and confirms the conclusion of Experiment 1. Results: In Experiment 1, a notable contextual cue learning effect was observed under the identity-consistent condition (
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.