ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2024
Attending is not enough: Responding to targets is needed for across-trial statistical learning.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent evidence shows that observers are able to learn across-trial regularities as indicated by faster responses to targets whose location was predicted by the target's location on the preceding trial. The present study investigated whether responding to both targets of the pair, as was the case in studies thus far, was needed for learning to occur. Participants searched for a shape singleton target and responded to the line inside. There were two across-trial predicting-predicted regularities regarding target locations: if the target appeared at one specific location on a given trial, it would appear at another specific location on the next trial. Unlike previous experiments, for one of these regularity pairs a response was only needed on either the first or the second target in the pair. Experiment 1 showed that across-trial learning only occurred when responding was required to both targets of a pair. If the response to one target of a pair had to be withheld, no learning occurred. Experiment 2 showed that the absence of learning cannot be attributed to carry-over inhibition resulting from not having to respond. After learning across-trial contingencies, learning remained in place even when the response to the first target of the pair had to be withheld. Our findings show that the execution of the (arbitrary) simple key-press response for both trials of the pair was needed for across-trial statistical learning to occur, whereas solely attending target locations did not result in any learning.
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.