ArticleScientific reports2024
Complex trade-offs in a dual-target visual search task are indexed by lateralised ERP components.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effort expectation and strategic cue use in visual search.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
- Picking the right piece: Action intentions shape visual search and action planning in human multi-target-foraging.iScience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In everyday tasks, the choices we make incorporate complex trade-offs between conflicting factors that affect how we will achieve our goals. Previous experimental research has used dual-target visual search to determine how people flexibly adjust their behaviour and make choices that optimise their decisions. In this experiment, we leveraged a visual search task that incorporates complex trade-offs, and electroencephalography (EEG), to understand how neural mechanisms of selective attention contribute to choice behaviour in these tasks. On each trial, participants could choose to respond to the gap location on either of two possible targets. Each target was colour coded such that colour indicated which of the two had the easier gap discrimination. Orthogonally, we manipulated the set size of coloured distractors to modulate how efficiently each target could be found. As a result, optimised task performance required participants to trade-off conflicts between the ease of finding a target given the current set size, and the ease of making its associated gap discrimination. Our results confirm that participants are able to flexibly adjust their behaviour, and trade-off these two factors to maintain their response speed and accuracy. Additionally, the N2pc and SPCN components elicited by search displays could reliably predict the choice that participants would ultimately make on a given trial. These results suggest that initial attentional processes may help to determine the choice participants make, highlighting the central role that attention may play in optimising performance on complex tasks.
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.