Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39388013›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2024

Contextual cuing survives an interruption from an endogenous cue for attention.

Tom Beesley, Louise Earl, Hope Butler, Inez Sharp, Ieva Jaceviciute, David Luque

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Tom BeesleyDepartment of Psychology, Lancaster University, UK, Lancaster, LA1 4YD, UK. t.beesley@lancaster.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2836-2743
Louise EarlDepartment of Psychology, Lancaster University, UK, Lancaster, LA1 4YD, UK.
Hope ButlerDepartment of Psychology, Lancaster University, UK, Lancaster, LA1 4YD, UK.
Inez SharpDepartment of Psychology, Lancaster University, UK, Lancaster, LA1 4YD, UK.
Ieva JaceviciuteDepartment of Psychology, Lancaster University, UK, Lancaster, LA1 4YD, UK.
David LuqueUniversidad de Málaga, Málaga, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Three experiments explored how the repetition of a visual search display guides search during contextual cuing under conditions in which the search process is interrupted by an instructional (endogenous) cue for attention. In Experiment 1, participants readily learned about repeated configurations of visual search, before being presented with an endogenous cue for attention towards the target on every trial. Participants used this cue to improve search times, but the repeated contexts continued to guide attention. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the presence of the endogenous cue did not impede the acquisition of contextual cuing. Experiment 3 confirmed the hypothesis that the contextual cuing effect relies largely on localized distractor contexts, following the guidance of attention. Together, the experiments point towards an interplay between two drivers of attention: after the initial guidance of attention, memory representations of the context continue to guide attention towards the target. This suggests that the early part of visual search is inconsequential for the development and maintenance of the contextual cuing effect, and that memory representations are flexibly deployed when the search procedure is dramatically interrupted.

Indexed as

AttentionCuesOrientationPattern Recognition, VisualAssociation LearningFemaleHumansMaleMemory, Short-TermReaction TimeYoung AdultAttentionContextual cuingEndogenous cuingIncidental learningVisual search

Identifiers

PMID39388013
PMCPMC11652569

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.